Re: Variable length fields question -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: Variable length fields question
From: CRPence <CRPbottle@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 14:55:01 -0500
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On 29-Jul-2014 16:07 -0500, Voris, John wrote:

<<SNIP>> I believe that if we defined the system using SQL Tables
and Views instead of DDS, then we would likely gain more in CPU
savings than anything we might achieve with database field sizes.

That belief is sure to lead to disappointment. There is effectively nothing with differences between DDS and SQL DDL that will assist with performance for [var]char fields\columns. Differences will be seen most with changes from RLA to SQL DML; effectively the same difference with the file(s) remaining defined via the DDS.

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.