Re: SQL question

["Charles Wilt" <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think David's question comes from prior admonishments not to use SQL
for record-at-a-time access; use RPG for RLA and SQL for set at a
time.

Overall, good guideance, but as my first response says, a single
statement by itself is not usually GOOD or BAD.

What he's doing around that statement would make a difference.

The most important question, is he happy with the current performance
and resource use?  If so, then don't worry about it at this point.

Charles

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Walden H. Leverich
<WaldenL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> David,
>
> I don't see a problem with that statement at all. I think the difference
> in the preceding question (if it's the one I think it was) had to do
> more w/the IN predicate which can be a tricky beast, especially if your
> subqueries are correlated subqueries)
>
> I would ask about the point of the join though. I assume that either
> MYFIELD or MYOTHERFIELD are in MYTABLE2, or you're using the join to
> limit the list of rows selected from the first table. Right?
>
> -Walden
>
> --
> Walden H Leverich III
> Tech Software
> (516) 627-3800 x3051
> WaldenL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.TechSoftInc.com
>
> Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
> (Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.)
> --
> This is the RPG programming on the IBM i / System i (RPG400-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
> or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.