Re: [U2] RECORDLOCKED statement

2009-12-16 Thread Baker Hughes
...@neimanmarcus.com Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 5:27 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] RECORDLOCKED statement The only consideration is that your second case statement picks up at -2 instead of -1. I think you are going for CASE RECORDLOCKED(PICH.TX, SO) = LOCK$OTHER.READL which is the -1 return value

Re: [U2] RECORDLOCKED statement

2009-12-16 Thread Baker Hughes
] RECORDLOCKED statement The other consideration is that each case statement uses the same RECORDLOCKED(PICH.TX, SO) function reference, meaning it runs the function 3 times (according to your snippet). I would normally assign the function result to a variable and test the variable in the case

Re: [U2] RECORDLOCKED statement

2009-12-16 Thread Baker Hughes
] RECORDLOCKED statement Assign the result to a variable: that reduces the i/o to the lock manager by 60%+ Brad This communication, its contents and any file attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential proprietary information. Access by any

[U2] RECORDLOCKED statement

2009-12-15 Thread Baker Hughes
I admit I have never used this little jewel of a [UV] statement, so although the code runs and works as designed, before I load it to production, someone please tell me if there are any nuances that would improve the design/operation. CASE RECORDLOCKED(PICH.TX, SO) = LOCK$MY.READU * This

Re: [U2] RECORDLOCKED statement

2009-12-15 Thread Raul_Dominguez
...@neimanmarcus.com 972-401-6502 Baker Hughes baker.hug...@mouser.com Sent by: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org 12/15/2009 05:17 PM Please respond to U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To 'U2 Users List' u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org cc Subject [U2] RECORDLOCKED statement I admit I have

Re: [U2] RECORDLOCKED statement

2009-12-15 Thread Gregor Scott
List Subject: Re: [U2] RECORDLOCKED statement The only consideration is that your second case statement picks up at -2 instead of -1. I think you are going for CASE RECORDLOCKED(PICH.TX, SO) = LOCK$OTHER.READL which is the -1 return value. At least according to the UniVerse documentation

Re: [U2] RECORDLOCKED statement

2009-12-15 Thread BraDav
To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] RECORDLOCKED statement The only consideration is that your second case statement picks up at -2 instead of -1. I think you are going for CASE RECORDLOCKED(PICH.TX, SO) = LOCK$OTHER.READL which is the -1 return value. At least according to the UniVerse