Q I'm sorry; I don't understand your SORT control statements.  But still, 
don't you wind up with several SORTOUTs where Binyamin wants one.
I suspect you have an easy answer for that, but does that address 
Binyamin's other concerns:

Paul,

 Yes Binyamin will have 254 output datasets from each step which looks 
like 

HLQ.STP00001.OUTPUT
HLQ.STP00002.OUTPUT
..
HLQ.STP00023.OUTPUT
.
HLQ.STP00254.OUTPUT

If OP needs all these into a single dataset, it is quite easy to generate 
another dynamic JCL to MERGE(Since the SORTING is already done) all these 
into a single dataset in the same job I have shown. 

Either way isn't it true for any utility about the concatenation limits 
unless OP writes a program to perform a SORT(bubble..) inside the program?

Thanks,
Kolusu
DFSORT Development
IBM Corporation

IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> wrote on 
02/25/2014 08:28:17 AM:

> From: Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected], 
> Date: 02/25/2014 08:28 AM
> Subject: Re: DFSort support for REXX E15?
> Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]>
> 
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:06:08 -0800, Sri h Kolusu wrote:
> 
> >Q . Most of the suggestions don't address Binyamin's concern with the
> >limit on concatenation size.
> >
> >Paul,
> >
> >The Proposed solution by me indeed takes care of concatenation limits. 
I
> >took the limit to be 254 datasets.  The job I have shown will create 
254
> >job steps with each step having a concatenation limit of 254 datasets 
for
> >SORTIN.
> > 
> (IIRC, I've had other jobs fail at more like 1000 than 254.)
> 
> I'm sorry; I don't understand your SORT control statements.  But still,
> don't you wind up with several SORTOUTs where Binyamin wants one.
> I suspect you have an easy answer for that, but does that address
> Binyamin's other concerns:
> 
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:58:49 +0200, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
> >
> >... And I wish an all rexx solution.
> > 
> >I ended up having step (1) combine them all into one big file and 
> then doing a
> >SORT. But it adds an extra pass across all of the data.
> >
> When one is proficient with a hammer, one treats everything as a nail.
> So I wound up (in my imagination) with Rexx feeding a single SORTIN
> via a POSIX pipe.
> 
> Other utilities on other OSes have a different solution:
> 
> 561 $ uname -a
> Linux Linux-Mac 3.2.0-59-generic-pae #90-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jan 7 23:07:
> 06 UTC 2014 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
> 
> 562 $ man sort
>     ...
>        --files0-from=F
>               read input from the files specified by NUL-terminated 
names  in
>               file F; If F is - then read names from standard input
> 
> I suspect that Binyamin's Rexx code avoided the concatenation limit by 
using
> a similar technique (as would mine).
> 
> -- gil
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to