DSXchange

No, that *is* to proper way to do what you need. Something else is going on, like (as noted) perhaps you are looking at the wrong job in the sequence?

That would be an "HP thing" not a "DataStage thing".

Great... The Phantom of the Exchange lives!

In other words - don't generate any.

Ragunathan Gunasekaran wrote:I am not sure what ray is conveying as i am not a premium member. But hope using like what i have portrayed does not impact huge

He's saying there's no reason to shell out to dsjob and play all those games when there are perfectly good API functions to get what you need inside the job.

Please no advices for keeping any source in the job as i am moving to finish the overall seq design in which i am going to plug the job. No worries, couldn't give any advices anyway as I have no clue what this means. You need a constraint to control the number of records generated. For a single row...

As best as I recall, I've always seen this happen. It's just one of those annoyances you put up with.

Ok, now please help us out.

What was the resolution here? Posting that brings closure to the topic and helps future searchers...

Two Job Activity stages? You could use a Nested Condition stage to check the parameter and branch accordingly.

Wouldn't you be better off asking this on a TeraData forum?

Assuming 'new line' = LF:


Or

Either by searching or by looking wherever you installed the DataStage client on your PC. Typically C:\Program Files\Ascential\DataStage...

Not that I recall ever seeing, but then I can't say that I've seen everything. Let's see what others have to say...

Perhaps 'gone' just means 'outside of the current Filter limits'. Do you have a limit on the number of log records you can display? Does the Director show (Filtered) in the status line?

For Craig: If you create a table with a primary key index in Oracle, Sybase, etc, you can't drop the index without dropping the table. If you create the table without a primary key index, but add a unique index afterwards, the database will use that one just the same as a primary key index. Now why...