Merge Stage or Join Stage inconsistent output

Post questions here relative to DataStage Enterprise/PX Edition for such areas as Parallel job design, Parallel datasets, BuildOps, Wrappers, etc.

Moderators: chulett, rschirm, roy

Post Reply
ajay.kumar2
Participant
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:00 am

Merge Stage or Join Stage inconsistent output

Post by ajay.kumar2 »

In my parallel job I have a merge stage with master link and five update links.
The update links are outputs from 5 different modify stages.

I have set the Execution mode of Merge Stage to "sequential" and preserve partitioning to "clear". All other stages have default values (default parallel and default propagate).

The problem is that the output rows from merge stage are coming to be inconsistent, in one run i have 3 output rows from merge if there are 3 master rows but in some other runs i get only 1 row. It should be 3 rows each time.
the input file and data and everything is kept same for both runs.

note : in my configuration file i have two nodes defined.
ray.wurlod
Participant
Posts: 54595
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:52 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by ray.wurlod »

What is your "unmatched masters" rule?
IBM Software Services Group
Any contribution to this forum is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect any position that IBM may hold.
ajay.kumar2
Participant
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:00 am

Post by ajay.kumar2 »

ray.wurlod wrote:What is your "unmatched masters" rule? ...
unmatched masters mode = "KEEP"
ray.wurlod
Participant
Posts: 54595
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:52 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by ray.wurlod »

What stage type is downstream of the Merge stage, and is it executing in sequential or parallel mode? Does your Merge stage have a reject link and is it capturing any rows? One possibility is that you are trying to match the same key value three times, but are not aware that rows from the update inputs are consumed when there is a match.
IBM Software Services Group
Any contribution to this forum is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect any position that IBM may hold.
Post Reply