DSXchange

There's quite a nice backup script posted at ADN, if you have a logon there.

kumar_s wrote:If you have "File Pattern" pattern option as available in PX...

What Ray means is... you don't.

Sorry, but your link in the first post still asks me to log in again.

Everything I can find on the net about these errors seems to point to a heap error, like this one for instance:

http://www.thetechtwo.com/detail-9350141.html

The solution seems to involve getting the latest 'Fixpack'. Something to check out.

Odd... I made sure the link I posted worked, at least for me. Not sure what's going on in your case. Now, your link doesn't work but instead asks me to log in. That seems to happen when someone posts a referring link from search results rather than a direct link. Meaning, a link to just the topic (u...

Found the post I was thinking of. Seems my memory was a little... off... as the clarification Ray made was specific to a comment *I* made in the post about 'context switching' and not generally about the performance of a routine versus a transform. Anywho, worth linking here as it's another patented...

Good to know, Arnd. An additional 1.5 seconds over the course of a million rows isn't a deal breaker to me, but the overhead is something to be aware of.

Just having this 'deja vu all over again' feeling, as I know this conversation has played out more than once in the past.

I dont think so Craig thats the problem. Didn't say that was the problem they were dealing with, just that it's going to be another problem. I'm sure people have gotten it installed on XP and probably even working. Just pointing out that it's not an 'officially supported platform', so if you actual...

Your other problem is going to be the fact that XP is not supported as a Server platform.

2.) The routine call has a performance cost. Calling a transform is much faster. I'm not so sure this is true. It comes up every now and then and I seem to recall Ray begging to differ on the subject. Now, obviously comparing a limited-to-one-line transform to a routine which could be very complex ...

Something Changed. It's your job to figure out what.

A search of the forum for 'C Stage PlugIn function "Get" required' returned 28 matches, I'd start there.

You're probably right, Vince... but that wasn't true at first. The first version that I used it with 'Custom Folders', back in the 4.x or 5.x days, had an interesting little bug. You would initialize a script and in the process VC would basically hork it up. You see, it insisted on writing back to t...

Seems to be more about the fact that the 'parameter value pairs' must be pipe delimited as gateleys showed in his post... and DS_MJ is not doing that.

Ok then... what exactly does your stored procedure do?

You don't necessarily even need stage variables. If the old max is known and can be passed in as a job parameter, then all you need to do is add @INROWNUM to it when processing each record.