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: "Lukas Beeler" <lukas.beeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:54:29 +0100
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>

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Mike Cunningham <mcunning@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Isn't there also some implications for backups? If the PF is keyed you can't backup the data without also backing up the index since it is all in one object. If the PF is un-keyed you can choose to backup the key if you think that is in your own best interest, by backup up the logical files.

Isn't this about SAVLIB ACCPTH(*NO) and QSAVACCPTH? I think this
controls if you save access paths (which i believe is the IBMism for
indexes).

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 ) , Dave McKenzie

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.