DB2 - L

_{Hi All,}

Since simple table spaces were depreciated we are converting them to UTS any other reason why we need to go with UTS conversion.

Thanks in advance
Sekhar.

------------------------------
Sekhar
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 12/20/2021 7:11:00 AM
From: Chandrasekhar Baggu
Subject: Why UTS

_{Hi All,}

Since simple table spaces were depreciated we are converting them to UTS any other reason why we need to go with UTS conversion.

Thanks in advance
Sekhar.

------------------------------
Sekhar
------------------------------

For completeness:  one place where UTS is discouraged is for workfile tablespaces (DSNDB07 or whatever).  DSNTIJTM / DSNTWFG will set application compatibility back to V11R1 if it creates them.

One of the 'Apollo'  presentations mentioned that there was work to 'do something' about this situation for Apollo.   

------------------------------
James Campbell
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Dec 20, 2021 07:21 AM
From: Bill Gallagher
Subject: Why UTS

Simple tablespace, segmented tablespaces and "classic" partitioned tablespaces have all been deprecated.  Once you get to Db2 v12 FL 504, UTS (either partition-by-range or partition-by-growth) is your only option for CREATE TABLESPACE (unless you set your CURRENT APPLICATION COMPATIBILITY to a lower function level).

 

Bill Gallagher | Senior Systems Engineer, DBA

 

Original Message:
Sent: 12/20/2021 7:11:00 AM
From: Chandrasekhar Baggu
Subject: Why UTS

_{Hi All,}

Since simple table spaces were depreciated we are converting them to UTS any other reason why we need to go with UTS conversion.

Thanks in advance
Sekhar.

------------------------------
Sekhar
------------------------------

All of the new whizz bang features and extras are *only* for UTS spaces... so it pays to get there!

Roy Boxwell

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING GmbH and SEGUS Inc.
-Product Development-

Vagedesstrasse 19
40479 Dusseldorf/Germany
Tel. +49 (0)211 96149-675
Fax +49 (0)211 96149-32
Email: R.Boxwell@seg.de
Web http://www.seg.de
Link zur Datenschutzerklärung

Software Engineering GmbH
Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, HRB 37894
Geschäftsführung: Gerhard Schubert, Ulf Heinrich


Original Message:
Sent: 12/20/2021 7:11:00 AM
From: Chandrasekhar Baggu
Subject: Why UTS

_{Hi All,}

Since simple table spaces were depreciated we are converting them to UTS any other reason why we need to go with UTS conversion.

Thanks in advance
Sekhar.

------------------------------
Sekhar
------------------------------

I had a whizz bang feature once. It was quite painful.


Original Message:
Sent: 12/20/2021 8:27:00 AM
From: Roy Boxwell
Subject: RE: Why UTS

All of the new whizz bang features and extras are *only* for UTS spaces... so it pays to get there!

Roy Boxwell

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING GmbH and SEGUS Inc.
-Product Development-

Vagedesstrasse 19
40479 Dusseldorf/Germany
Tel. +49 (0)211 96149-675
Fax +49 (0)211 96149-32
Email: R.Boxwell@seg.de
Web http://www.seg.de
Link zur Datenschutzerklärung

Software Engineering GmbH
Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, HRB 37894
Geschäftsführung: Gerhard Schubert, Ulf Heinrich


Original Message:
Sent: 12/20/2021 7:11:00 AM
From: Chandrasekhar Baggu
Subject: Why UTS

_{Hi All,}

Since simple table spaces were depreciated we are converting them to UTS any other reason why we need to go with UTS conversion.

Thanks in advance
Sekhar.

------------------------------
Sekhar
------------------------------

The real question is, why WOULDN'T you?

It can be tricky if you have multiple tables in a tablespace to single them out (I think IBM provides a methodology for this in M508??). But other than that...why would you NOT want to have BOTH the operational advantage of space-maps AND the scalability of partitions in a tablespace??

There's also the support-issue. Right now IBM would probably still support you if you had an issue with simple tablespaces. Sooner or later they'll get to a point where Lvl1 is going to say, "before we take a crack at this, try REORGing these objects into UTSes". It's not just access to the whizz-bangs, it's avoiding the snap-crackle-pops.

------------------------------
MarkWieczorkowski...
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Dec 20, 2021 07:10 AM
From: Chandrasekhar Baggu
Subject: Why UTS

_{Hi All,}

Since simple table spaces were depreciated we are converting them to UTS any other reason why we need to go with UTS conversion.

Thanks in advance
Sekhar.

------------------------------
Sekhar
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 12/21/2021 6:58:00 AM
From: Mark Wieczorkowski
Subject: RE: Why UTS

The real question is, why WOULDN'T you?

It can be tricky if you have multiple tables in a tablespace to single them out (I think IBM provides a methodology for this in M508??). But other than that...why would you NOT want to have BOTH the operational advantage of space-maps AND the scalability of partitions in a tablespace??

There's also the support-issue. Right now IBM would probably still support you if you had an issue with simple tablespaces. Sooner or later they'll get to a point where Lvl1 is going to say, "before we take a crack at this, try REORGing these objects into UTSes". It's not just access to the whizz-bangs, it's avoiding the snap-crackle-pops.

------------------------------
MarkWieczorkowski...
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Dec 20, 2021 07:10 AM
From: Chandrasekhar Baggu
Subject: Why UTS

_{Hi All,}

Since simple table spaces were depreciated we are converting them to UTS any other reason why we need to go with UTS conversion.

Thanks in advance
Sekhar.

------------------------------
Sekhar
------------------------------

Besides all the performance reasons to convert to UTS, some orgs do not want to convert to UTS due to inspired platform change initiatives.   

So,  is it safe to say that applications can create segmented multi-table tablespaces while having Db2v12 FL508 active,  if the EXEC SQL SET CURRENT APPLICATION COMPATIBILITY = VvvRrMmmm (FL503 or lower) during creation?

And as a follow-up, can segmented multi-table tablespaces be maintained and function properly while Db2v12 FL508+ is active?

------------------------------
RichGatanis
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Dec 21, 2021 06:58 AM
From: Mark Wieczorkowski
Subject: Why UTS

The real question is, why WOULDN'T you?

It can be tricky if you have multiple tables in a tablespace to single them out (I think IBM provides a methodology for this in M508??). But other than that...why would you NOT want to have BOTH the operational advantage of space-maps AND the scalability of partitions in a tablespace??

There's also the support-issue. Right now IBM would probably still support you if you had an issue with simple tablespaces. Sooner or later they'll get to a point where Lvl1 is going to say, "before we take a crack at this, try REORGing these objects into UTSes". It's not just access to the whizz-bangs, it's avoiding the snap-crackle-pops.

------------------------------
MarkWieczorkowski...

Original Message:
Sent: Dec 20, 2021 07:10 AM
From: Chandrasekhar Baggu
Subject: Why UTS

_{Hi All,}

Since simple table spaces were depreciated we are converting them to UTS any other reason why we need to go with UTS conversion.

Thanks in advance
Sekhar.

------------------------------
Sekhar
------------------------------

Yes to both questions, but as mentioned in an earlier post - At some point in time these deprecated tablespaces will no longer be supported. I have no idea when, maybe even never, but I hate the thought of being the only shop in the world running production workload on deprecated spaces when you know that IBM are probably not really testing that thoroughly anymore...

Roy Boxwell

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING GmbH and SEGUS Inc.
-Product Development-



Vagedesstrasse 19
40479 Dusseldorf/Germany
Tel. +49 (0)211 96149-675
Fax +49 (0)211 96149-32
Email: R.Boxwell@seg.de
Web http://www.seg.de
Link zur Datenschutzerklärung

Software Engineering GmbH
Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, HRB 37894
Geschäftsführung: Gerhard Schubert, Ulf Heinrich


Original Message:
Sent: 3/10/2022 3:41:00 PM
From: Rich Gatanis
Subject: RE: Why UTS

Besides all the performance reasons to convert to UTS, some orgs do not want to convert to UTS due to inspired platform change initiatives.   

So,  is it safe to say that applications can create segmented multi-table tablespaces while having Db2v12 FL508 active,  if the EXEC SQL SET CURRENT APPLICATION COMPATIBILITY = VvvRrMmmm (FL503 or lower) during creation?

And as a follow-up, can segmented multi-table tablespaces be maintained and function properly while Db2v12 FL508+ is active?

------------------------------
RichGatanis
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Dec 21, 2021 06:58 AM
From: Mark Wieczorkowski
Subject: Why UTS

The real question is, why WOULDN'T you?

It can be tricky if you have multiple tables in a tablespace to single them out (I think IBM provides a methodology for this in M508??). But other than that...why would you NOT want to have BOTH the operational advantage of space-maps AND the scalability of partitions in a tablespace??

There's also the support-issue. Right now IBM would probably still support you if you had an issue with simple tablespaces. Sooner or later they'll get to a point where Lvl1 is going to say, "before we take a crack at this, try REORGing these objects into UTSes". It's not just access to the whizz-bangs, it's avoiding the snap-crackle-pops.

------------------------------
MarkWieczorkowski...

Original Message:
Sent: Dec 20, 2021 07:10 AM
From: Chandrasekhar Baggu
Subject: Why UTS

_{Hi All,}

Since simple table spaces were depreciated we are converting them to UTS any other reason why we need to go with UTS conversion.

Thanks in advance
Sekhar.

------------------------------
Sekhar
------------------------------