Re: SQL010 - length of a table's record

Hi Darryl,

Also, consider if your application really needs to SELECT all those
columns. Eliminating some columns from the SELECT, as opposed to
shortening how many bytes you select from each column, may be a better
choice.

Applications should only select columns they are using, and not select
columns they are not. Performance will improve in most cases if you follow
that rule, and code volume will decrease. SELECT * is something you should
avoid embedding in an application, if that is what you're doing.

400 columns in a table likely means the table is not conforming to 3rd
normal form for table design, but that is a separate concern.

Mike

-----Darryl Freinkel <dhfreinkel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: -----
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Darryl Freinkel <dhfreinkel@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 08/10/2016 11:38AM
Subject: SQL010 - length of a table's record


Something I have not had to deal with before.

I have to create a table that has about 400 fields which are mostly VARCHAR
and of length 100 to 2000 each. So I get SQL0101.

I have always heard that the table sizes can go into the yoda byte sizes
but never a record length maximum.

For now I have reduced the field sizes to 50 chars to get passed the issue.

This is a V5R4 system.

Is there a work around or different way to use these huge record sizes?

TIA
--
Darryl Freinkel