Giuseppe

Can you put it out to 9 in the file but only 8 on the screen? Numerics in
DSPF cannot be packed.

1. If they are different names, no problem until 2052 (sort of a
millennium-plus problem ;-)   ), Just to the MOV ops as now
2. If the names are the same (hope not), you might be able to use the
based-on-REF-field idea and shorten it in the DDS for the DSPF.

HTH

Vern

At 11:29 AM 11/29/02 +0100, you wrote:
Hi Al,

actually I have this RIDICULOUS problem:

I'm working in a Bank and not in a barber shop, and I've been asked to give
a technical answer to this question (and to decide). Maybe if I respond that
this is a RIDICULOUS question, in the future I will probably have to ask the
barber shop to give me a job.

At present a certain field is 7.0 - and it must be enlarged because now -
after 6 (six) years - it is going to become full.

How much we should enlarge it? With 8.0 we can add more 90,000,000 items and
it is enough for the next 50 years but it seems that there is an overhead
(this field is part of  a key in other db for a total of  800,000,000 rcds).
With 9.0 there is no overhead and no waste of space but we have hundreds of
panels (especially subfile lines) and reports where one more byte cannot
fit.
-snip-



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.