RE: SETLL in SQL ?

From: Wilt, Charles

I don't know about you, but I've yet to run across a business need for a
"position to".

Well, position to is a basic feature that nearly every one of my clients
uses every day. So I guess your clients are different than mine.

The business need, thus what the user really wants is a way to get to the
part of the list they need.
The user may be used to "position to" but that doesn't mean you have to
give it to them. Particularly when there's a better way.

The need is what the user needs. The only decision point is whether it
makes the user more productive.

Personally, I normally use "subset by" as it tends to be more productive
for the user.

Position to is often just as effective and less I/O intensive. If it makes
the user more productive and is more efficient, it wins, in my opinion.


You can argue the point, but position-to is simply more cumbersome in SQL
than in ISAM. That's a fact. Walden's work-around is the best I've seen to
date, and it's still unnecessary overhead. If you don't need position-to,
then it's a moot point.

And let's be clear, position-to is not my only reason for using ISAM. ISAM
stills beats SQL hands down in most transaction-oriented situations. This
particular question is just a specific question.


Joe