Re: I guess I don't know dates

On 2012-06-28, at 12:36 PM, rpg400-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

I think it's a little murky to use the word "stored" there. The
*internal* representation is a binary Lilian (or close enough) date.
By "internal", IBM means (approximately) "in memory".

Not so. It is the stored disk record that has the binary value. As the record is "surfaced" by the system's IO routines it is at that point that it is expanded into the 8 or 10 character form you see. From what Birgitta says the underlying SQL routines do not make that transform.

No utility software has to be fooled or take extraordinary measures because it is impossible to "see" the field in any other way. As far as I know only by dumping the disk to print can you observe the raw form. Probably some sst tool or whatever as well - but us mere mortals can't see it that way.

I believe external representations (which are formatted) include not
only displays, but storage in physical files (which is what I think of
when I see "stored"). As mentioned before in this thread, when you
specify DATFMT in the DDS, the field in the physical file will be
sized and formatted accordingly. (As far as I can tell, the
*physical* representation of a date in a PF is identical to the
appropriately edited character string. The only difference being that
the field is declared as type L instead of type A.)

If you do the math (records x length compared with actual storage usage) you will find that this is not the case. It is particulalrly obvious in a file with multiple 10 character date fields.


Jon Paris

www.partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com