Home > Archive > Cobol > July 2004 > Re: Layout Hell
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| > Could I have some help with this layout?
> I am new to the layout scene, but if I could see some real examples, I might
> get it. Then again, I might club myself with a shovel.
> Thank you.
> I just need to convert this file to Access or something normal.
> Do you have any thoughts?
> Thanks you.
What is it that makes this record layout abnormal as opposed to
something you don't know anything about?
Normal record layouts similar to this have been in very successful use
since Bill Gates was in diapers. You can't do packed-decimal in
Access, you can't do redefines in Access, you can't even have group
levels in Access, you can't define a primary key as more than one
field in Access. That seems pretty abnormal and deficient to me.
| |
|
|
> What is it that makes this record layout abnormal as opposed to
> something you don't know anything about?
It doesn't work with this tape. Maybe the tape is wrong with this file
layout after all.
>you can't even have group levels in Access,
I think that is what joins are all about
> you can't define a primary key as more than one field in Access.
Yes you can
>That seems pretty abnormal and deficient to me.
It is painful
| |
|
| Mike wrote:
> Normal record layouts similar to this have been in very successful use
> since Bill Gates was in diapers. You can't do packed-decimal in
> Access, you can't do redefines in Access, you can't even have group
> levels in Access, you can't define a primary key as more than one
> field in Access.
I was with you 'til the last one - you can have multiple-field PK's in
Access (I believe at least as far back as version "97")...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Michael Mattias 2004-07-17, 8:55 pm |
| "Mike" <NoSpam@StopSpam.org> wrote in message
news:C6mdnXT-R-dX1mrdRVn_vA@giganews.com...
> Normal record layouts similar to this have been in very successful use
> since Bill Gates was in diapers....
And probably will be when he's back in diapers, too..
MCM
| |
|
| > I was with you 'til the last one - you can have multiple-field PK's in
> Access (I believe at least as far back as version "97")...
I said that poorly. You can't have multiple primary key fields that you
treat as one field or one name - like a group level name is the key which
consists of many fields underneath it - at least as far I know. If you
have 3 columns F1, F2, F3 as primary keys you can't say F-All is the key?
Record Key is F-All.
05 F-All.
10 f1 pic x.
10 f2 pic x.
10 f3 pic x.
| |
|
| Mike wrote:
>
>
> I said that poorly. You can't have multiple primary key fields that you
> treat as one field or one name - like a group level name is the key which
> consists of many fields underneath it - at least as far I know. If you
> have 3 columns F1, F2, F3 as primary keys you can't say F-All is the key?
>
> Record Key is F-All.
> 05 F-All.
> 10 f1 pic x.
> 10 f2 pic x.
> 10 f3 pic x.
Right. But, instead of assembling the pieces to an intermediary field
and then doing a read based on 1 key, you'd just use those pieces in the
select statement...
select * from f_table where (f1 = [value for f1] and f2 = [value for f2]
and f3 = [values for f3])
....whereas, in the COBOL file equivalent, you'd say...
move [value for f1] to f1
move [value for f2] to f2
move [value for f3] to f3
read f-file record
.. You're still dealing with the pieces, just not on the actual
retrieval command.
SQL is a different beast from an indexed file (of course, you seem to
know enough about SQL to know that... ;> ) And, although Access does
its best to hide stuff, you can still create indexes and primary keys to
help speed things up (and maintain data integrity). My biggest grip
with Access is when you have more than one user hitting it - in my
experience, it's locking mechanism doesn't seem to be designed well for
multi-user applications.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| Then what are all these improvements that have been made?
"Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote in message
news:UUgKc.38365$eH1.18190015@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> "Mike" <NoSpam@StopSpam.org> wrote in message
> news:C6mdnXT-R-dX1mrdRVn_vA@giganews.com...
>
> And probably will be when he's back in diapers, too..
>
> MCM
>
>
>
>
| |
|
| Carol wrote:
> "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:UUgKc.38365$eH1.18190015@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Then what are all these improvements that have been made?
Who knows - but the point is that code similar to the record layout you
were given has been around for a long time, and probably at least one of
your bank / credit accounts utilize something similar. And, I know that
your tax return is processed using something like that (I work next to
someone who's previous job was DBA for the IRS's Unisys mainframes in
Memphis, TN). :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
|  thanks
|
|
|
|
|