If you cannot rely on the data being in the correct sequence when using a partial key then using SETLL and READE with a partial key would give unpredictable data. This is unacceptable.
There is no question - or ought not be - that the records are delivered in key sequence.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Harman
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:42 PM
To: 'RPG programming on the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries)'
Subject: RE: CHAIN on a Partial Key
One would *assume* you would get the first record by key order. Perhaps not, though.
The documentation I found is ambiguous (at least to me). It says it will find the first matching record on the access path. What does that mean? I don't know but I found this posting that seems to reinforce your opinion of randomness (actually, arrival sequence within the first key segment).
http://www.mcpressonline.com/forum/showthread.php?12362-SETLL-READ-vs-CHAIN
Post #5
<quote>:
<snip>
I was told by someone a long time ago (he was supposedly an IBM guru) that a chain will get the first record of a partial key in arrival sequence.
So, if FieldA was 10, Filed B was 20 in 20 records and FieldC was 1 through 20. If the records were originally written in FieldC order, the first record should be correct beacuse the arrival sequence/RRN order is the same as the key order. But if the records were written where FieldC values were 15,6,8,20,1... not in order by the key field, the first record retrieved by the partial key would be where FieldC=15. If the full key is used in the chain, it reads by the key order. CHAIN was never intended to be used as a substitute for SETLL. At least that's what the guru said. I don't use CHAIN anymore as a SETLL. I'm using free-format and it's a pain to deal with %FOUND, %EOF.
</quote>
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Sam_L
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 2:19 PM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: CHAIN on a Partial Key
I have a logical file uniquely keyed on ITEM and WAREHOUSE.
I have found an (incorrect) program that does a CHAIN to this logical using just ITEM. (The assumption may have been that it would get the lowest WAREHOUSE which is where most stock is, but it is old code and I can't ask
anyone.)
I believe it sometimes gets a record that isn't the lowest WAREHOUSE and ITEMS sometimes vanish from a report because there is no stock in this warehouse.
Some eagle eyed person found items missing from a report from last year.
We restored the PF and the LF from a backup tape to another library, reran the report, and the missing items correctly turned up.
I believe that there is no guarantee that if you do a CHAIN on ITEM that you are guaranteed to get the record with the lowest value of WAREHOUSE and that randomly we get another record.
Others are skeptical that I have found the cause, but it is a complicated program stack and we haven't found any other reason.
Question 1: Am I on solid ground with my belief?
Question 2: Does any one know of any documentation on this subject?
Thanks, Sam
--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (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.
--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (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.
midrange.com
