Joined: 02 Dec 2002 Posts: 629 Topics: 176 Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:47 am Post subject: Thanks for checking it out Roy
Your solution was one that was at the back of my head (I seem to have remembered reading about it somewhere).
What I don't really understand is why anyone would choose your working example over the second variation above that worked straight off the bat with "less" hassle ? If nothing else, to use the INSQLDA option, you then have to start looking up the required values for SQLTYPE etc etc
Before you say "because it's cheaper", I'll riposte with my usual comment to this at work. What costs more money, CPU cycles or us developers' time ?
Joined: 02 Dec 2002 Posts: 629 Topics: 176 Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 3:05 am Post subject: Roy.
Rereading my comment, I can see how it might be construed as being "impolite". My apologies for that. Basically, it seems to me that the second alternative is much easier than the first, so why would anyone even bother to look at the second one? You end up needing to jump through hoops doing stuff that isn't required in the first example. (Having said that, I can imagine that you probably (?) have to use the second alternative for VARCHAR columns, BLOBS etc, but other than that, why bother?) _________________ Michael
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Quick Manuals
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
