Re: Finding pending in-place alters

Superboer wrote: > ahum a quick search in the news group helps too.... > > And a quick re-read of my message would show you that I already _knew_ how to do those sysmaster queries, but that those only show the _possible_ pending in-place alters, not the _actual_ ones. I'm not above a RTFM reprimand now and again, but let's save them for when they apply, shall we? :) As it turns out, on one of our systems, those queries identified about two dozen tables, only a third of which actually needed the dummy updates. On large tables, we'd like to avoid running those dummy updates except where absolutely necessary.

Thomas J. Girsch said: > > Superboer wrote: > >> ahum a quick search in the news group helps too.... >> >> > And a quick re-read of my message would show you that I already _knew_ > how to do those sysmaster queries, but that those only show the > _possible_ pending in-place alters, not the _actual_ ones. > > I'm not above a RTFM reprimand now and again, but let's save them for > when they apply, shall we? :) > > As it turns out, on one of our systems, those queries identified about > two dozen tables, only a third of which actually needed the dummy > updates. On large tables, we'd like to avoid running those dummy > updates except where absolutely necessary. RTFM. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche did i mention i like nulls? heck, i even go so far as to say that all columns in a table except the primary key could/should be nullable. this has certain advantages, for example, if you need to insert a child record and you don't have a parent row for it, just do an insert into the parent table with the primary key value (everything else null), and voila, relational integrity is preserved. but this is, admittedly, a bit controversial among modellers. --r937, dbforums.com

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > RTFM. > say it ain't so, they took the cow away...