|
What would make it more readable is that I can use an OPEN/CLOSE cursorwithin a recursive ILE procedure and let the recursion stack keep track of
my position within each recursive cursor. With SETLL/READE, I've got tohave an F-spec for the file within each procedure (only doable on 6.1+). I
can't help thinking that building the new ODP from each F-spec would bekind of slow, maybe slower than setting a new cursor. If I don't have a
new F-spec within each procedure, I've got to build some mechanism forreseting the position in the READE list whenever a recursion returns; that
mechanism becomes hard for the maintenance programmer to read anddecipher.
joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Subject: RE: SQL database object names longer than 10 characters andcase?
mixed
RPG and SQL in a variety of forms. I use whichever is suited to
I don't want to get embroiled in this religious war. I use both RLA
from
tool is right for the job. That seems to me to be just the opposite of athe application I happen to be working.
It's definitely *not* a religious war, Dan. I believe in using
whichever
religious position. Those who would require SQL (or RLA for thator null fields, or whatever) seem to have the more rigid ideology. There
matter,
are very few absolutes in programming, and to tell someone that RLA isbecause it's "outdated" is, if not religious, then certainly somewhat
bad
fanatical in nature.can't be done with an SQL cursor, or that is significantly slower in
But, I'd like to know what you advocates of RLA think RLA can do that
with multiple cursors. I think multiple cursors might actually beSQL than RLA. Joe even offers in his BOMP example that it could be
done
easier to read.faster than a bunch of recursive SETLL/READE's. It would surely be
fetch and close any more readable than an F-spec with a SETLL/READE loop?
Not sure about the readability. Why is an exec sql declare cursor,
open,
But if you want something that's significantly slower, then just do asimple benchmark on doing a select into for a single record as upposed to
a CHAIN. The last time I checked SQL was 5 or 6 times slower thaI/O. That's not an insignificant amount.
native
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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.