Login
Register
Search
Home
Forums
Jobs
LawsonGuru
LawsonGuru Letter
LawsonGuru Blog
Worthwhile Reading
Infor Lawson News Feed
Store
Store FAQs
About
Forums
Infor / Lawson Platforms
S3 Systems Administration
Move away from law_dba tables
Home
Forums
Jobs
LawsonGuru
LawsonGuru Letter
LawsonGuru Blog
Worthwhile Reading
Infor Lawson News Feed
Store
Store FAQs
About
Who's On?
Membership:
Latest:
Zac Shields
Past 24 Hours:
0
Prev. 24 Hours:
2
Overall:
5210
People Online:
Visitors:
418
Members:
0
Total:
418
Online Now:
New Topics
Lawson S3 HR/Payroll/Benefits
Post Tax Benefit Plan Table
11/14/2024 9:16 PM
Hi, totally new to Laswon. I have a repor
Lawson S3 Procurement
ED501 Error: Map 850 not supported by /law/c15vda/lawson/test10/edi/bin/laws_out_91
11/12/2024 3:47 PM
Tried runnning ED501 and getting the atathced erro
Lawson S3 HR/Payroll/Benefits
Error
11/6/2024 9:54 PM
When I try to enroll a retiree in 72.1 health plan
Infor ERP (Syteline)
Syteline: New Data Maintenance Wizard (Error) Need help
11/1/2024 4:24 PM
Hi, I need help with an error on syteline while us
Dealing with Lawson / Infor
Implementing Lawson v10 with Cerner Surginet, Case Cart Picking, and Quick Adds for the OR
10/29/2024 4:20 PM
Hi Everyone, I am wondering if there is any org
Lawson S3 HR/Payroll/Benefits
Canada Tax Calculation (Federal and Provincial) Issue
10/23/2024 5:00 AM
Initially, we had problem with CPP2 calculation is
Lawson S3 HR/Payroll/Benefits
CA Section 125 401k Plan
10/22/2024 10:13 PM
Does anyone have any recommendations on how to fac
S3 Systems Administration
Running AC120 deleted records from ACMASTER table
10/22/2024 3:40 PM
We recently ran the AC120 as normal and somehow it
Lawson S3 Procurement
RQ13 Approval Info
10/17/2024 2:12 PM
When a Requisition is approved on RQ13, what table
S3 Customization/Development
Read and Write CSV file COBOL
10/9/2024 2:53 PM
Does anyone have a quik example of a program that
Top Forum Posters
Name
Points
Greg Moeller
4184
David Williams
3349
JonA
3291
Kat V
2984
Woozy
1973
Jimmy Chiu
1883
Kwane McNeal
1437
Ragu Raghavan
1372
Roger French
1315
mark.cook
1244
Forums
Filtered Topics
Unanswered
Unresolved
Announcements
Active Topics
Most Liked
Most Replies
Search Forums
Search
Advanced Search
Topics
Posts
Prev
Next
Forums
Infor / Lawson Platforms
S3 Systems Administration
Move away from law_dba tables
Please
login
to post a reply.
3 Replies
0
Subscribed to this topic
27 Subscribed to this forum
Sort:
Oldest First
Most Recent First
Author
Messages
Richard J Sculpher
Basic Member
Posts: 15
5/29/2012 11:22 AM
Hi - when we create a new table that uses VARCHAR2 we have to add a line in the law_dba_table table to show that we are using VARCHAR2. Likewise we have to put new indexes in the law_dba_index table. The theory is that when the reorg runs it looks in the law_dba tables then dbdef for the data it needs to do the reorg. That's the theory...at the moment it doesn't always look in the law_dba tables.
Lawson no longer support the law_dba tables - we can use them but they won't fix them if they break. They supply the editda utility to update dbdef. dbdef can be updated directly, but not to add the VARCHAR2 specification. That can only be added via editda.
We want to move away from the law_dba tables as they are no longer supported. To do so we need to create the data for the editda process. The editda does provide an export process for the dbdef, but it doesn't extract VARCHAR2 data as that is in the law_dba tables.
I am about to try to write a process which will create the editda input from an extract from the law_dba tables. Before I start though, has anyone else encountered the same challenge...and if so what was your solution. I should point out that currently we have just one database space name defined, which is our default. We define other tablespace names for tables and indexes in the law_dba tables. For editda we will have to define more database space names to cover all the mixes of table and index space names used in the law_dba tables.
Further, currently we have multiple indexes on a table...and these indexes can be in one or more index spaces. editda (and hence dbdef) allows indexes for one table to go into only one index space. This is going to be inconvenient - has anyone a work-around to this?
Anyone any thoughts?
Thanks
Richard
J.Desrosiers
New Member
Posts: 1
8/30/2012 2:27 PM
Hi,
We have Lawson & LandMark software installed here.
We currently have multiple tablespaces for tables and indexes.
Am I reading your thread correctly that Lawson will not allow this in the future?
Thanks
Jean
Richard J Sculpher
Basic Member
Posts: 15
8/31/2012 6:56 AM
Hi Jean
The restriction I was trying to describe relates to multiple indexes on a single table. Currently we may put these multiple indexes in different index spaces, thus index1 might be in the large indexspace and index2 in the small indexspace, depending on how much space is required for that index.
We are able to do this because we can define the indexspace for an individula index within the law_dba_index table. However when the law_dba* tables are no longer available (they are not supported now), all the indexes for an individual table will have to go into the same indexspace, so in the example above both index1 and index2 would have to go into the large indexspace despite index2 not needing a space of that size.
Our DBA doesn't like this move as it removes flexibility.
I hope that clarifies the position - if not let me know and I'll try again :-)
Richard
Scooby
Basic Member
Posts: 13
12/3/2012 6:53 PM
To Clarify: From Inside Lawson: LAW_DBA_TABLES are not being dropped or desupported
Please
login
to post a reply.