RGZPFM vs Reusing Deleted Records
Home > IT Answers > Storage > RGZPFM vs Reusing Deleted Records
LSwanKayla
20 pts.
0
Q:
RGZPFM vs Reusing Deleted Records
DASD, RGZPFM, REUSEDLT, Space allocation
Does anyone have an opinion on using one over the other? I am familiar with RGZPFM and it's benefits but am not familiar with the PF option of reusing deleted records...I would think it would be better to reorganize the file rather than reusing deleted records becuase you could have a lot of deleted records in the your file but that doesn't mean they are all being used... any advise on this matter is appreciated!!
ASKED: Oct 24 2008  5:27 PM GMT
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
RELATED QUESTIONS
0
Philpl1jb
24530 pts.
0
A:
 RATE THIS ANSWER
+1
Click to Vote:
  •   1
  •  0
  • AddThis Social Bookmark Button
If you expect to find the records in the entry order you cannot use Reuse Deleted
Unless you use RGZPFM the file will always occupy the space of the largest number of active records

RGZPFM requires exclusive access to the file
RGZPFM will allow you to change the physical file sequence, which might speed up some access
Last Answered: Oct 24 2008  6:01 PM GMT by Philpl1jb   24530 pts.
  •   
0
0
RSS - Discussions Help
Discuss This Answer:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Cwc   3860 pts.  |   Oct 27 2008  2:40PM GMT

If you have a huge file that takes hours to reorganize, and you can’t afford that much downtime with your application which uses it, reusing deleted records would be preferable. We have such a file in our application, and it takes a day or two to reorganize it. So, reusing works better for us, since new records are frequently added to the file, which reuses the space.

 
0