Re: Compare libraries across systems or on the same system

[CRPence <CRPbottle@xxxxxxxxx>]

  Database *FILE object are composites.  There are many related 
"objects" which make up the *FILE.  Some of the composite pieces of the 
database *FILE are "shared".  When a "duplicate" is made of a physical 
file [using CRTDUPOBJ, and by other means], the database may choose to 
"share" some sharable pieces.  Most notably, the "record format" is 
identical for both files, so there is no requirement for the new file to 
have its own.  DSPDBR TheLib/TheFile RCDFMT(*ALL) issued for either of 
the two files, the original and the duplicate, the "owner" [not user 
profile, but the owning-file] of the shared format will be listed first.

  Neither CRTDUPOBJ nor Save\Restore will effect anything like a 
"reorganize" of the data.  That would be a very worrisome\deprecated 
implementation :-Q  In both cases, the data is copied identically; i.e. 
the "dataspace" object itself is "duplicated" to whichever media 
[including disk\DASD] is being used.  Other data copy methods which 
choose which rows or order to copy, for example with CPYF invocations, 
the dataspace is unlikely copied; although some copy-all-data 
invocations of CPYF can take advantage of the feature to copy the 
dataspace versus specific rows of data.

  Differences in sizes in save\restore are often related to indexes 
whereby rebuilds or again "sharing".  Access Path sharing is "optimized" 
upon restore, so sharing which did not exist on save can be established 
at restore.  Similarly sharing of formats that did not exist during save 
[but which were recorded merely historically] could be established 
during restore.  There are diagnostic messages during restore which 
allude to possible growth\change effected.

Regards, Chuck

On 06-Jan-2012 10:27 , Charles Wilt wrote:
> Basically, CRTDUPOBJ as far as I know...
>
> Reorg wouldn't explain it, as mentioned, the files are empty.
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Alan Shore<ashore@xxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > How was the second set of objects created?
> > Save & restore of individual libraries, or a save and restore of
> > individual objects, or some type of copy? The reason I ask this is
> > I seem to remember that copying a file does a form of re-org on
> > that file with respect to deleted records. I don't know if this is
> > true with save and restore though
> >
> > Charles Wilt on Friday, January 06, 2012 10:56 AM
> > > <<SNIP>>
> > > I notice that some of the differences in sizes don't seem to have
> > > any  reason...
> > >
> > > Example for one PF, which has 0 members and the same format on box
> > > boxes:
> > > System A, object size 20480
> > > System B, object size 28672
> > >
> > > <<SNIP>>