Re: SETLL and SETGT on partial keys

James

The reference manual says this about SETGT -

The SETGT operation positions a file at the next record with a key or relative
record number that is greater than the key or relative record number specified in
factor 1.

So I read that to mean, it'll be set after the last record that has the value or values you set in the key, or as if you did *HIVAL, I suppose, in the remaining key fields.

SETLL -

The SETLL operation positions a file at the next record that has a key or relative
record number that is greater than or equal to the search argument (key or relative
record number) operand specified (search-arg).

So yes, it will set on %equal, because it's based on the search argument, not the full key of the file.

I'm going through all this myself, again, since I need to fully understand the behavior for a project I'm working on. Things like what happens when you do a CHAIN with a set of key fields, then READE with a subset of those fields, etc.

HTH
Vern

On 12/9/2010 11:13 AM, James H. H. Lampert wrote:

By the time you get this, I'll already be RTFMing this one, and probably
writing test programs as well, but:

Given a file with two keys, first a 10-character alpha, then a 3-digit
packed,

If you do a SETLL on just the leading 10-character alpha key, will
%EQUAL reflect the presence or absence of a "hit"?

If you do a SETGT on just the leading 10-character alpha key, will it
behave as if you did it with *LOVAL for the second key (i.e., go to the
leading key you specified), or *HIVAL for the second key (i.e., the next
available leading key)?

--
JHHL