Re: Database Re-eng

[DAsmussen <DAsmussen@xxxxxxx>]

Neil (H-W),

In a message dated 98-04-02 11:10:37 EST, you write:

>      We're thinking of re engineering (to some extent) one of our 
>       applications as we convert to y2k.
>       
>       We are divided on some of our ideas;
>       
>       1. Whether to get rid of access path definition on PF's.

Not quite sure what you mean here.  If you mean getting rid of keyed PF's, we
had a discussion here a year or so ago about it.  I believe that it was proven
that my own archaic (S/38 days) opinions of _NEVER_ having a keyed physical
were no longer valid in the /400 era.  Don't quite remember, though...

>       2. Whether to can the Field Ref file and define purely on the PF (our 
>       field names are exclusive to the PF already).
<<snip>>

I would recommend _strongly_ against this.  I don't know the application, but
how can you have an application in which all of the field definitions are
unique to a single physical file?  You don't have an Order Header file in
which the Order Detail refers to the order number?  Or in which the customer
number refers to the Customer Master file?  You only have _ONE_ physical file
in the whole system that contains a _DATE_?!!  Sounds more like you have an
incorrectly defined data dictionary...

JMHO,

Dean Asmussen
Enterprise Systems Consulting, Inc.
Fuquay-Varina, NC  USA
E-Mail:  DAsmussen@aol.com

"It's a rare person who wants to hear what he doesn't want to hear." -- Dick
Cavett
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---