DSXchange

Eric, I have a hard time believing that an upsert operation would require a commit / transaction size of 1. Array size, perhaps, but not transaction size. If you are doing "transaction grouping" however, that certainly does. Are you seeing documentation anywhere that specifically mentions ...

Here problem is two servers has same host name 102.54.94.97 rhino1 # DS server 38.25.63.10 rhino2 # DS server Color me confused, nothing here shows as having the same or duplicate host names. As noted, one is named "rhino1" and the other "rhino2". Everything after the hash sign ...

I was going to suggest switching to "DWA" and then checking for "THURSDAY" but basically the same suggestion, that way there's no confusion over what day of the week you are looking for. I also seem to recall there may be a setting in the dsenv file that controls what day of the ...

BASU wrote:However the MAX function in my aggregator stage insists on storing the result in a DOUBLE datatype whereas my source is a timestamp. Is there a workaround?

Enable the Preserve Type property.

Show us what you are doing, the syntax you are using and the data types involved.

Why no reply from me? Mostly because it was 8AM my time and I have almost an hour commute to my client's office, so was driving.

Glad you got it sorted out.

Show us the function and syntax you are using.

Well, the stage certain thinks it is fixed-width or it wouldn't complain about not finding exactly 205 bytes in the record. What are all of the settings you are using in the stage?

Sounds like you are working with a fixed-width file, you said the record length was 205 bytes but it only found 204 in the actual record. Which number is correct?

Any chance this is a multi-instance job?

OK... just for grins, clarify something. Are you executing an actual script in the Execute Command stage or not? It almost sounds like all you have in the stage is just the "ssh" command but that would make zero sense. What are you trying to accomplish? You need to ssh to a remote server a...

I don't believe they meant that there is an XRP format anything they are dealing with, just that they are seeing "special" characters like the super-script trademark character and don't know how to deal with it.

So... what characterset is your target database using?

A bug, I would wager. Take it to support and see if there is a patch available.

SURA wrote:Yes Ray, that is the first ans came in my mind and i was surprised why it was not mentioned before....

You mean other than in the very first response?