Re: File Size not as expected

On 29 Jul 2013 15:01, CRPence wrote:

On 29 Jul 2013 14:18, Anderson, Kurt wrote:

<<SNIP>> I'm sure there's a wonderfully valid reason for this,
although it makes me wonder if every RGZPFM we have in our processes
should be ran twice instead of once.

The reason is as I stated; i.e. the DB /balances/ the implications of
reorganize request between the effects on performance and storage. The
idea being, to be predictive of the nature of using the database member
to store data. Running the offline reorganize a second time overrides
the decision by that database, to imply reclaiming storage is more
important than the negative impacts to performance.

<<SNIP>>

http://pic.dhe.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v7r1m0/topic/dbp/rbaforrgpfu.htm
"...
_i Usage notes: Reorganizing a physical file member i_
...
≥ If you use the RGZPFM command twice in a row, you might notice that the total size of the member after the first time differs from the total size after the second. This is because the amount of space allocated for the reorganized member is only an estimate that allows extra space for future insertion. After records are reorganized the first time, the space allocated is calculated exactly."