Archives of the TeradataForum

Message Posted: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 @ 23:57:19 GMT

	<Prev	Next>		<<First	<Prev	Next>	Last>>

I hope you didn't form this opinion from any of my comments. I think UDF's are great as they enable you to do a lot more things in the database than you might otherwise be able to do with out them.

That said the success of any project is going to be primarily attributable to the people on it and the environment they are working in (availability of data helps in a DHW project as well). The same applies to UDF's. If you have competent 'c' programmers with clear requirements for a task suited to a UDF you will likely get a good result.

I'm not sure if you have had a problem with UDF's so I can't comment on where you get the "suspect behaviour" from. Are you referring to a particular UDF (in which case the first port of call is the provider of the UD)? Or are you referring to the facility in general? My experience has been that (facility in Teradata wise) UDF's work as advertised.

Per my previous posts I've used UDF's on a number of occasions and enabled queries that could have not otherwise been run on Teradata. The UDF has enabled more users to do more things on the system.

On the other hand, I have absolutely 0% trust on any UDF's that I download - if were to use one, I would inspect the source and test it very, very carefully before I deployed it on a production system. But then we would always do that before deploying any code to production - wouldn't we?!?!?! :-)

Glenn Mc

P.S. where did you see reference to the tdat function? I tried searching the "UDF, UDM..." manual (V2R6.1) and couldn't find it. The DDL manual has an example to illustrate the syntax of a table function called tdat - but that is just to illustrate the create function syntax.

Either way, a base install doesn't come with any UDF's (User Defined Functions) that I'm aware of. If it did they would probably be called SDF's (System Defined Functions) :-)

	<Prev	Next>		<<First	<Prev	Next>	Last>>