On Nov 10, 2005, at 12:00 PM, Skip Robinson wrote:
I'm all for dynamic SORTWK, but we recently hit a problem that I
posted to
the List for help. Our installation default number for SORTWK is 3. An
application did such a large sort that the work files came out to
be >64K
tracks. The sort operation was generated by ICETOOL, so we had to
figure
out how to tell ICETOOL to request a larger SORTWK number. Of
course Frank
Y replied within minutes. ;-)
.
.
Skip,
I must have missed that post. Did he tell you to use size=Exxxxx ?
In my meanderings with the two sort products that seemed the easiest
way to do it. There are probably other ways to do it as well.
The problem that I have run into is that programmers usually don't
know the number of records they are sorting (even production wise).
What would be nice is that at the end on the input phase the sort
would then pass the number of records. That is not perfect as it (the
sort ) would still have to know how much to allocate (space wise) in
order to hold the entire sort. On the other hand if there wasn't
enough space then quite a bit of processing has been wasted. I can't
think of a perfect solution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
