Re: Creating a PF - Compiled File vs. SQL Create Table Command

[Billy Rowe <billyrowe@xxxxxxx>]

   I can't think of anything that stands out per creating a table by dds or
   SQL but as fyi for
   creating an index:
   I'm not sure if this is still true for V5R4, but used to be when a SQL
   Index is created it
   uses a 64K logical page size for its internal binary radix tree index,
   compared with 16K
   for a DDS logical file, and thus from what I understand provides better
   query
   optimization.

 Whoops, that's one place I forgot to check....thanks!

 -----Original Message-----
 Subject: RE: Creating a PF - Compiled File vs. SQL Create Table Command

 Brian,

 Did you check the archives?  IIRC, there was a lengthy discussion on
 this last week.  If not, I know there are several threads dealing with
 this topic.  You will probably find your answers there.  If not, let us
 know what you couldn't find.

 Rick

 -----Original Message-----
 Subject: Creating a PF - Compiled File vs. SQL Create Table Command

 Hi All,

 Is there any difference between creating a physical source file member
 and compiling it versus using an SQL CREATE TABLE command?  When using
 the i5, I've always created a PF and then compiled it as my table, but I
 have never created a table using the SQL CREATE TABLE command.

 I did a test of the CREATE TABLE command, and it did indeed create a PF
 in the specified directory.  However, it doesn't create the associated
 member (or does it?) that I can use to modify and update the table if
 fields need to be added/modified/deleted.

 One advantage I did notice is that I am not limited to ten characters
 like a standard physical file (yes, I understand there are ways around
 it).

 Are there any specific reasons why I would want to select one method
 over another?  File maintenance would be a matter of editing the PF
 member and doing a CHGPF on a modified file versus an ALTER TABLE
 command. 

 Am I missing something fundamental here?

 Thanks