Re: QSQPTABL usage as a 1-record table for SQL functions

[Jonathan Ball <jonball52@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just guessing, but I think he means a field not in any table in his 
production (application) database.

Vern Hamberg wrote:
> QSQPTABL should always be there - it's been around since V3RX, I believe.
>
> Alan mentions SYSIBM/SYSDUMMY1 - that is in there to make it like other 
> flavors of DB2 and will always be there, as well.
>
> They each have a single dolumn - I think one is alpha and one is an 
> integer - I forget.
>
> But how do these fit your needs? You say you want some field that is not 
> in a table - these are both tables!!
>
> Confused here   :-}
>
> Vern
>
> Dan wrote:
>   
> > I am looking at using an SQL function on a working field that is not in a
> > table.  I've found some references in the archive about using QSQPTABL as
> > the from-table to accomplish this.
> >
> > Because I am looking to use this in a production application, I am trying to
> > determine how reliable it is for me to assume that:
> >  1) the QSQPTABL will always be available, and
> >  2) it will always have ONLY one record.
> >
> > I searched for QSQPTABL in the v5r4 InfoCenter, and came up with zero
> > results.  When I searched using the "global" search box in InfoCenter, the
> > results were PSP (Preventive Service Planning) notices or PTF cover letters
> > that use QSQPTABL in example code to demonstrate how an SQL function is
> > used, with no explanation of what QSQPTABL is or why it is used.  Of course,
> > the implicit reason is that it is presumed to always exist on every system
> > and always has one record.
> >
> > And what a weird table!  One record, with one field, a 4-byte binary having
> > a value of 1.  There's no description on the file object.
> >
> > Is this table documented by IBM anywhere that indicates its purpose?
> >
> > TIA,
> > Dan
> >   
> >