Read without setting the pointer

[sudha]

Hi All,

I am reading the database file without positioning the pointer. Is it correct one where I am reading the database without using SETLL. The file is having key field.I need to read all the records from database. So without using setll I can directly use Read??

Please advise.

Rgds,
Sudha.

[MichaelCatalani]

Re: Read without setting the pointer

Hi All,

I am reading the database file without positioning the pointer. Is it correct one where I am reading the database without using SETLL. The file is having key field.I need to read all the records from database. So without using setll I can directly use Read??

Please advise.

Rgds,
Sudha.

Yes you can, and it may or may not work. I'm not sure why you want to avoide using a setll.

If you want the program to work every time, consistently and depandably, then you need to perform a setll. Without using a setll, a read operation begins from the current file pointer. If the current file pointer is at the begining of the file, then it would work. But if the file pointer is not at the begining of the file, it would only pick up the records from where the file pointer was to the end of the file. Without using a setll, a simple modification to the program (such as returning with *Inlr off) woul keep the program from working correctly after the first call.

Simply setll using *loval on the file, and all will be good with the world.

[jamief]

Re: Read without setting the pointer

To me using setll is like if %found()
I just use it all the time

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/index.jsp?topic=/books_web/c0925085739.htm

==> positions the pointer to the record Equal to or Greater than Factor 1
==> *LOVAL repositions at the start of a keyed file
==> *START repositions at the start of a non-keyed file 

[tomholden]

Re: Read without setting the pointer

FWIW i would use *START on the setll rather than *LOVAL...

[BenThurley]

Re: Read without setting the pointer

I'm confused. The original post says they need to read all records. I would assume this is why they can't use setll. What is it exactly that is required? Maybe you want to do a read(n) so you read through the file without locking any records?

[soup_dog]

Re: Read without setting the pointer

I'm confused. The original post says they need to read all records. I would assume this is why they can't use setll. What is it exactly that is required? Maybe you want to do a read(n) so you read through the file without locking any records?

Setll should have nothing to do with locking records. It sounds to me like the original poster did not understand exactly what setll was for and therefore did not want to use it. Personally, I would always use the setll with the *start option.

[BenThurley]

Re: Read without setting the pointer

Yes but you can't read all the records with setll can you? I think we need to know more about the actual problem.

[MichaelCatalani]

Re: Read without setting the pointer

FWIW i would use *START on the setll rather than *LOVAL...

Yea, *Start is better. Old habit, and I havent really ever had enough programs to write that needs to read a file from the start of the file in order to break it.