This is a discussion on modifed timestamp of a table within the DB2 forums, part of the Database Server Software category; --> Hi, Information with regard to creation of a table is stored in SYSTABLES. Is modified time stamp of a ...
| |||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| |||
| No this information is not stored in any of the CATALOG tables. But all the changes will be LOGGED. You can use db2urlog or something like that to read those LOGS and check for a particular table.... This entire process is complex... cheers... Shashi Mannepalli Sumanth wrote: > Hi, > > Information with regard to creation of a table is stored in SYSTABLES. > Is modified time stamp of a table stored in > DB2, if so where. > > Thanks, > Sumanth |
| |||
| Sumanth wrote: > Hi, > > Information with regard to creation of a table is stored in SYSTABLES. > Is modified time stamp of a table stored in You should use only the views in the SYSCAT schema, i.e. SYSCAT.TABLES. All tables in the SYSIBM schema are not documented and they may change at any time, breaking your application if you rely on them. > DB2, if so where. The actual timestamp of the last data modification is not automatically tracked. This would be a huge bottle-neck performance-wise if it were done. -- Knut Stolze DB2 Information Integration Development IBM Germany |
| |||
| Knut Stolze wrote: ....snip... > > The actual timestamp of the last data modification is not automatically > tracked. This would be a huge bottle-neck performance-wise if it were > done. But its been requested over and over and over again. Seems like those smart IBM engineers could figure out some way to do it w/o screwing up performance. aj |
| |||
| aj wrote: > Knut Stolze wrote: > ...snip... >> >> The actual timestamp of the last data modification is not automatically >> tracked. This would be a huge bottle-neck performance-wise if it were >> done. > > But its been requested over and over and over again. Seems like those > smart IBM engineers could figure out some way to do it w/o screwing up > performance. > > aj And I'd only need the time of last ALTER TABLE -- -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ | Gregor Kovac | Gregor.Kovac@mikropis.si | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | In A World Without Fences Who Needs Gates? | | Experience Linux. | -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ |
| ||||
| Gregor Kovač wrote: > aj wrote: > >> Knut Stolze wrote: >> ...snip... >>> >>> The actual timestamp of the last data modification is not automatically >>> tracked. This would be a huge bottle-neck performance-wise if it were >>> done. >> >> But its been requested over and over and over again. Seems like those >> smart IBM engineers could figure out some way to do it w/o screwing up >> performance. As soon as someone implements a general purpose sorting mechanism that runs faster than O(n log n), we can probably discuss the tuple counter again. ;-) > And I'd only need the time of last ALTER TABLE Indeed, I've been wondering why this information isn't available. :-( -- Knut Stolze DB2 Information Integration Development IBM Germany |