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: Dave McKenzie <davemck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:54:21 -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>

Tom Liotta wrote:

So, the question remains -- WAS there ever a reason /in fact/ for
non-keyed PFs?

I always thought the reason was so that you could remove the index(es),
by removing the LF member(s).

For example, the rule of thumb was that if you had to add a large batch
of records (say > 10% of the current # of records), it was faster to
remove the index, add the records, and re-add the LF mbr, which would
rebuild the index.

You can't remove the index of a PF.

--Dave

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

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

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.