Re: Why non-keyed PFs back then? Why today? ( was Re: Which of the SYSIBM tables/views show the row count for ) -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: Why non-keyed PFs back then? Why today? ( was Re: Which of the SYSIBM tables/views show the row count for )
From: Keith Carpenter <entropypool@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:10:14 -0700
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

PaulMmn wrote:

Perhaps we were lucky, but we had PFs with indices 'back in the day.' I believe we were always able to use CPYF FRMRCD(1) to recover damaged PFs.

OK, but still this would have been a distinct disadvantage for very large PFs where the available storage for a copy might be limited and the added downtime of the copy could be significant. I recall a shop (model 7) where one large table took DAYS to rebuild all it's indexes. Those old boxes were slow.

Keith

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.