Re: DDS vs DDL. Record format level -- MIDRANGE-L

Very recently someone mentioned on this site that the default field size
allocated on an sql varchar field is set to 0 (zero); (or some very
small size).

Would there be differences in the way DDL and DDS handle varchar fields
that would cause the different record format level numbers?

Paul

On 2017-10-18 16:08, Troy Hyde wrote:

Nathan,
"I have long questioned the relevance of converting existing DDS-defined to
DDL-defined files while attempting to maintain the same Level ID. Okay, it
can be done in most cases. But what value do you expect to gain?"

Not a ton of gain and none from the RPG/server side. Our GUI application is
written in Java using Hibernate. Our Java programmers are experiencing an
issue that has to do with the SQL cache that they claim is a non-issue for
SQL tables. This is another attempt to resolve a problem I actually
inquired on (very poorly) several years ago.
https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/201303/msg00417.html

----
To answer some of the other notes/questions:

Running 7.2

I get no errors running the SQL to create the table. I get the identical
table source when I use the ACS wizard as I did with the QSQGNDDL api.

Regarding the api, I have a hard time believing that's the issue. Whether
the SQL used to created the table is generated by ACS, the api or pulled
out of the air, the resulting table is going to be the same:

For those interested here's some snipped source:

A UNIQUE
A R LASECVF
A SVAPNO 6S 0
A SVMODL 40 VARLEN
A K SVAPNO

Results:
Format level identifier . . . . . . . . . . : 21BBD4C3F064B
Number of fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 2
Record length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 48

SQL code:
CREATE TABLE MYLIB/LASECV (
SVAPNO NUMERIC(6, 0) NOT NULL DEFAULT 0 ,
SVMODL VARCHAR(40) CCSID 37 NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
PRIMARY KEY( SVAPNO ) )
RCDFMT LASECVF ;

Results:
Format level identifier . . . . . . . . . . : 21BBD4C3F0E53
Number of fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 2
Record length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 48

SQL code:
CREATE TABLE MYLIB/LASECV (
SVAPNO NUMERIC(6, 0) NOT NULL DEFAULT 0 ,
SVMODL VARCHAR(40) CCSID 37 NOT NULL , (removed default)
PRIMARY KEY( SVAPNO ) )
RCDFMT LASECVF ;

Results:
Format level identifier . . . . . . . . . . : 21BBD4C3F4E93
Number of fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 2
Record length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 48

In addition, I can change leave "Default 0" or "Default '' for char and
numeric columns and it doesn't make a difference.

TROY HYDE, Upgrades and Standards Manager

FLEX : 800 262 3539

Troy.Hyde@xxxxxxxxxxx

Confidentiality Notice: This communication and any associated attachments
is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected
from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication and any accompanying attached information by anyone other
than the intended recipient(s), or an employee or agent acting on behalf of
the intended recipient, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message, and then delete it from your computer.

Subject: Re: DDS vs DDL. Record format level On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Troy Hyde <troy.hyde@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I've got a handful of DDS physical files, some that have existed since the late 80s, that I'm converting to DDL.

I have long questioned the relevance of converting existing DDS-defined to
DDL-defined files while attempting to maintain the same Level ID. Okay, it
can be done in most cases. But what value do you expect to gain?

I've never viewed DDS and DDL to be mutually exclusive. I see value in
both. I'm aware of people who preach DDL vs. DDS. To each their own.