I have not read all of this thread but
I believe, if you are Re-using Deleted Records there is a
difference between reading in records in RRN sequence versus
FIFO
John
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
BMay@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 3:49 PM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
Subject: Re: Non-unique keys
Would something as simple as creating a logical over the
file with the
FIFO keyword solve his problem?
Brian May
Project Lead
Management Information Systems
Garan, Incorporated
Starkville, Mississippi
Young i Professionals
http://www.youngiprofessionals.com
Scott Klement <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
03/12/2009 01:07 PM
Please respond to
RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
<rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
<rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: Non-unique keys
With all due respect... there's a VERY VERY big difference
between
"records will come in RRN sequence" and "records are
GUARANTEED to come
in RRN sequence".
Right now your records will indeed come in RRN sequence.
But they are
not guaranteed to do so. It's possible that your program
will break
with a PTF or OS upgrade or something like that, if IBM
should decide to
change the way it works.
This is a poor design. If you want the records to always
come in FIFO
sequence, then create the file with the FIFO keyword.
James H. H. Lampert wrote:
I just ran a test program, to detect any cases in which
non-ascending
RRNs would be read within a key; it found none. Although
it used The
Cycle, rather than a CHAIN followed by a READE loop, I
think it's
reasonable to expect the same results on the latter as the
former.
midrange.com
