Re: PF Compiled Files with Dictionaries vs. SQL-Created Tables

[CRPence <CRPbottle@xxxxxxxxx>]

  Various CAST UDF and UDF as replacements for various Scalar functions 
may be an effective requirement for most to utilize a UDT.  There are 
many disincentives for using a UDT, not least of which is [use of the 
non-SQL feature of] restore.  I actually have little experience using 
them, because the negatives I experienced were so great as to discourage 
using them.  Perhaps some glowing review of the benefits outweighing the 
costs might convince me otherwise.

Regards, Chuck

On 2/1/11 12:54 PM, Alan Campin wrote:
> Distinct Types. Not sure what you mean by writing UDF's. In this
> example, you are defining customer number to be VARCHAR(7). Now
> anywhere you define a field that needs customer number you just say
> UDT_CUSTOMER_NUMBER.
>
> CREATE DISTINCT TYPE UDT_CUSTOMER_NUMBER AS VARCHAR (7)  WITH
> COMPARISONS ;
>
> LABEL ON DISTINCT TYPE UDT_CUSTOMER_NUMBER IS 'Customer number
> definition';
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:24 PM, DeLong, Eric wrote:
> > Alan, are you referring to SQL User Defined Types (UDTs)?  I never
> > used them, mostly because I didn't want to write all the UDFs
> > needed to process the UDTs.  I'll stick with primitive types, and
> > build this logic into my service programs.
> >
> > Alan Campin on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:03 PM wrote:
> > > This is getting weird. I keep sending responses but they never
> > > get through.
> > >
> > > Why not use SQL types? Isn't that what they are for?