DSXchange

Why do you have to change it in every job? All you need to do is change the environment variable to point to the new file.

Knowledge of data is required here. I read between the lines of the original specification. Technically you also need to take into account AD/BC and dates beyond 9999-12-31 (to avoid introducing Y10K problems). Are you rigorous in this also? My alert was towards the OP Ray. You showed the OP the wa...

138 Million will has 8 digits and a billion will have 9 digits. Is it possible that you might be missing out on a single digit.

ray.wurlod wrote:
Year:

Code: Select all

Right(InLink.PERIODNAME,2) + 2000

You have to be careful while adding 2000. If the digits are less than or eqal to 99 or greater than say maybe 23 or something, then you need to add 1900. Basically distinguish between 20th and 21st centuries.

kollurianu wrote:L1 and F1 are not null fields
C1 is a nullable field

That is correct Ray. The OP has only L1 that is NULL and others are not null. Which is why the hashed file is allowing it. If all were nulls it would just reject the record.

I believe the timeout variable represents Tenacity.

...and thats a pain. I had to go through that excercise once and o boy o boy.

for the PERIOD. Second one looks ok but how many years are you going to hardcode?

I have never encountered that error and hence cannot provide any further advice. As per the other post, IBM had suggested to remove all references to LDAP. If you require that then I believe you need to get in touch with IBM to get a patch for it.

You can put in an IF then ELSE statement. I doubt ICONV/OCONV will recognize ADJ. I dont have access to datastage or else would have confirmed that for you.

1)Yes.
2)Look into the timestamp functions inside the transformer or in the px developers guide. THere is a complete list. I believe you need to change it to string and then to timestamp again, but not to sure.

Are you sure you are looking at the right View? Maybe it got updated between when you took count and ran your job

asorrell wrote:We would have sent you one but now they are all stuck to each other...

Because of the fact that its value might be overwritten during run time as ArndW suggested. Or are you referring to the correct use of grep syntax?

See if this post helps.