UDF and Stored procedures in same address space?

[login to unmask email]

UDF and Stored procedures in same address space?
I'm working on a project to set up the infrastructure for using User
Defined functions. We already have the infrastructure in place for stored
procedures and wondered if most companies that use both, are using the same
WLM address space and Loadlibs , or are you trying to keep stored
procedures and UDF in separate ones.

TIA
Shan Leatherman
American Century Services

Disclaimer: All thoughts are mine and not of my company



Suresh Sane

Re: UDF and Stored procedures in same address space?
(in response to Shan_Leatherman/MO/americancentury@americancentury.com)
Shan - we don't have many UDFs yet but have struggled with the same issue.
I see this as 2 separate items -

(1) WLM environment - depends on the granularity you need (and can afford).
I see UDFs and SPs as interchangable on a given test platform and decided
not to isolate the address spaces. Also, one may call the other causing
communication across adress spaces?

(2) Loadlib - this is more a question of application control over the
migration. Are they named differently? Does someone authorized to migrate
an SP also migrate a UDF? What about common subroutines either may call?
Here we started with separate loadlibs but eventually merged into 1 (per
test platform).

One related item - is everyone using PDSE's instead of PDS's for the
loadlibs?

Hope this helps.

May be this belongs in our local HOA list-serv that Jim has started.

Thanks,
Suresh


>From: [login to unmask email]
>Reply-To: DB2 Data Base Discussion List <[login to unmask email]>
>To: [login to unmask email]
>Subject: UDF and Stored procedures in same address space?
>Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:57:41 -0600
>
>I'm working on a project to set up the infrastructure for using User
>Defined functions. We already have the infrastructure in place for stored
>procedures and wondered if most companies that use both, are using the same
>WLM address space and Loadlibs , or are you trying to keep stored
>procedures and UDF in separate ones.
>
>TIA
>Shan Leatherman
>American Century Services
>
>Disclaimer: All thoughts are mine and not of my company
>
>
>
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com



Eric Pearson

Re: UDF and Stored procedures in same address space?
(in response to Suresh Sane)
Suresh,

Are you using PDSE?
For LOADLIBs?
For DBRMLIBs?

There was some discussion on this group a couple
of years ago about PDSE for DBRMLIBs.

Most of the replies said in essence that it
sounded like a good idea, but that they had
too many problems when they tried this.

Regards,
eric pearson
NS ITO Database Support


-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Sane [mailto:[login to unmask email]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:54 PM
To: [login to unmask email]
Subject: Re: UDF and Stored procedures in same address space?


Shan - we don't have many UDFs yet but have struggled with the same issue.
I see this as 2 separate items -

(1) WLM environment - depends on the granularity you need (and can afford).
I see UDFs and SPs as interchangable on a given test platform and decided
not to isolate the address spaces. Also, one may call the other causing
communication across adress spaces?

(2) Loadlib - this is more a question of application control over the
migration. Are they named differently? Does someone authorized to migrate
an SP also migrate a UDF? What about common subroutines either may call?
Here we started with separate loadlibs but eventually merged into 1 (per
test platform).

One related item - is everyone using PDSE's instead of PDS's for the
loadlibs?

Hope this helps.

May be this belongs in our local HOA list-serv that Jim has started.

Thanks,
Suresh


>From: [login to unmask email]
>Reply-To: DB2 Data Base Discussion List <[login to unmask email]>
>To: [login to unmask email]
>Subject: UDF and Stored procedures in same address space?
>Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:57:41 -0600
>
>I'm working on a project to set up the infrastructure for using User
>Defined functions. We already have the infrastructure in place for stored
>procedures and wondered if most companies that use both, are using the same
>WLM address space and Loadlibs , or are you trying to keep stored
>procedures and UDF in separate ones.
>
>TIA
>Shan Leatherman
>American Century Services
>
>Disclaimer: All thoughts are mine and not of my company
>
>
>
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com








[login to unmask email]

Re: UDF and Stored procedures in same address space?
(in response to Eric Pearson)
Hi Suresh,
Thanks for your thoughts. We are leaning toward setting up our
environment the same as you had stated. Did you have different naming
conventions for your stored procedures and udf?.
.
Glad you asked about PDSE (partitioned dataset extended) . I had the
same question. IBM strongly suggests the use of PDSE for load libraries
(although it only mentions it for stored procedures and not udf but am
assuming it applies to both). It states Using PDSE may eliminate your need
to stop and start the stored procedures address space due to growth of the
load libraries. I was surprised I would have to stop and start the WLM
address space if the loadlib ran out of space. ? Hmmm. I imagine if you
are doing lots of new additions and replacements, and you want to lower the
risk of your library having to be extended than it may be a worthwhile to
set up as such. I would also be curious of anyone that has set up their
udf or stored procedure loadlibs as a PDSE and if they are having any
problem, and if so, what kind of problems.

I like the thought that if you use PDSE for the load library, the new
extent info is dynamically updated and you do not need to stop and start
the address space. If PDSs are used, load failures may occur because the
new extent info is not available.

Shan
American Century Services

Disclaimer: All thoughts are mine and not of my company





Suresh Sane
<[login to unmask email] To: [login to unmask email]
TMAIL.COM> cc:
Subject: Re: UDF and Stored procedures in same address space?
Sent by: DB2
Data Base
Discussion
List
<[login to unmask email]
OM>


12/14/2001
11:53 AM
Please
respond to
DB2 Data Base
Discussion
List









Shan - we don't have many UDFs yet but have struggled with the same issue.
I see this as 2 separate items -

(1) WLM environment - depends on the granularity you need (and can afford).
I see UDFs and SPs as interchangable on a given test platform and decided
not to isolate the address spaces. Also, one may call the other causing
communication across adress spaces?

(2) Loadlib - this is more a question of application control over the
migration. Are they named differently? Does someone authorized to migrate
an SP also migrate a UDF? What about common subroutines either may call?
Here we started with separate loadlibs but eventually merged into 1 (per
test platform).

One related item - is everyone using PDSE's instead of PDS's for the
loadlibs?

Hope this helps.

May be this belongs in our local HOA list-serv that Jim has started.

Thanks,
Suresh


>From: [login to unmask email]
>Reply-To: DB2 Data Base Discussion List <[login to unmask email]>
>To: [login to unmask email]
>Subject: UDF and Stored procedures in same address space?
>Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:57:41 -0600
>
>I'm working on a project to set up the infrastructure for using User
>Defined functions. We already have the infrastructure in place for stored
>procedures and wondered if most companies that use both, are using the
same
>WLM address space and Loadlibs , or are you trying to keep stored
>procedures and UDF in separate ones.
>
>TIA
>Shan Leatherman
>American Century Services
>
>Disclaimer: All thoughts are mine and not of my company
>
>
> visit
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com


visit







Ulf Cihak

Re: UDF and Stored procedures in same address space?
(in response to Shan_Leatherman/MO/americancentury@americancentury.com)
When I was about to set up a PDSE as a Load Library for the WLM address
space, I was told from MVS people that PMO / Quickfetch would not support
PDSEs.
I have not checked this personally.
Ulf Cihak
> Glad you asked about PDSE (partitioned dataset extended) . I had the
>same question. IBM strongly suggests the use of PDSE for load libraries
>(although it only mentions it for stored procedures and not udf but am
>assuming it applies to both). It states Using PDSE may eliminate your need
>to stop and start the stored procedures address space due to growth of the
>load libraries. I was surprised I would have to stop and start the WLM
>address space if the loadlib ran out of space. ? Hmmm. I imagine if you
>are doing lots of new additions and replacements, and you want to lower the
>risk of your library having to be extended than it may be a worthwhile to
>set up as such. I would also be curious of anyone that has set up their
>udf or stored procedure loadlibs as a PDSE and if they are having any
>problem, and if so, what kind of problems.
>I like the thought that if you use PDSE for the load library, the new
>extent info is dynamically updated and you do not need to stop and start
>the address space. If PDSs are used, load failures may occur because the
>new extent info is not available.