RE: CPYF vs. CRTDUPOBJ

["Chris Bipes" <chris.bipes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

CRTDUPOBJ I believe will carry across triggers and other restrictions
that you may not want on the QTEMP version.  CRTDUPOBJ can be faster if
there are many records in the file.  You can specify NBRRCDS on the CPYF
command as 1 to speed up the process.

 

Chris Bipes
Director of Information Services
CrossCheck, Inc.


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James H. H.
Lampert
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 8:34 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: CPYF vs. CRTDUPOBJ

One of our applications requires one or more workfiles in QTEMP. 
Currently, those workfiles are created by CPYFing an empty "seed" 
version of the file located in the application directory.

Yesterday, we discovered that a long-unexplained intermittent glitch was

a side effect of an OVRDBF, which caused workfiles to be copied from an 
existing (and non-empty) copy in QTEMP, instead of from the empty "seed"

file.

I've put in a remedy (rearranging things to CLRPFM the workfile even if 
it's freshly generated, instead of only doing it if it had already been 
used in the job), but I see that CRTDUPOBJ (unlike CPYF) has the ability

to create a guaranteed-empty copy of a file. Obviously, this would be 
the more elegant solution, but it raises some questions:

1) Does copying a file into QTEMP with a CRTDUPOBJ potentially raise any

authority issues that doing it with a CPYF doesn't?

2) Which option is faster?

3) I know empirically that an OVRDBF will trump any qualification on a 
CPYF; what about CRTDUPOBJ?