Re: TRUNC(BIN) and COMP-5
- From: "Michael Mattias" <mmattias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:12:18 GMT
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mPOUi.263404$zt4.170346@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I realized that I made one mistake in my reply to RW.
COMP-5 and COMP with TRUNC(BIN) perform identically. The advantage of
COMP-5 is ....
If I may introduce an observation here...
If one is relying on the specific performance of TRUNC(), does that not
suggest one is catering to overflow, which further suggests the offending
code should be reworked to avoid overflowing both primary and intermediate
results or at the very least be handled with an ON SIZE ERROR clause?
Inquiring Minds Want to Know!
--
Michael C. Mattias
Tal Systems Inc.
Racine WI
mmattias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: TRUNC(BIN) and COMP-5
- From: William M. Klein
- Re: TRUNC(BIN) and COMP-5
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: TRUNC(BIN) and COMP-5
- References:
- TRUNC(BIN) and COMP-5
- From: William M. Klein
- TRUNC(BIN) and COMP-5
- Prev by Date: Re: XML generate
- Next by Date: Re: TRUNC(BIN) and COMP-5
- Previous by thread: TRUNC(BIN) and COMP-5
- Next by thread: Re: TRUNC(BIN) and COMP-5
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|