Yaeger-san,
Thank you very much for telling me the way without additional DFSORT
step. It is very helpful for me.
I really appreciate your support.
By the way, our customer already had installed the PTF on their z/OS
V1.10. So they could use KEYBEGIN parameter.
I'll try to install the PTF on
Minoru Massaki at IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
wrote on 02/29/2012 07:37:40 AM:
Yaeger-san,
Thank you very much for telling me the way without additional DFSORT
step. It is very helpful for me.
I really appreciate your support.
I'm glad I could help.
Frank Yaeger -
Minoru Massaki at IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
wrote on 02/27/2012 06:21:40 PM:
But unfortunately KEYBEGIN parameter became 'OPERAND DEFINER ERROR' on
my z/OS V1.12 (ADCD system) .
Then I have checked DFSORT Application Programming Guide for z/OS
V1.12, I could not find
Minoru Massaki at IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
wrote on 02/27/2012 07:23:45 PM:
I added an additional DFSORT step which add sequence number in dsname
records before ICETOOL step.
So the ICETOOL without KEYBEGIN parameter got the right result.
...
You don't need to add a
Hello DFSORT experts,
I'd like ask a help.
I have to do following by DFSORT
There is a data set which contains records with dsname, time, and
status as following
(dsname, time, status fields are fixed length)
The records are sorted by dsname and time.
dsn-aaa08:00 open
dsn-aaa
Guys,
Correct me if I am ring, what about ICETOOL
Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com
On Feb 27, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Minoru Massaki mmass...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello DFSORT experts,
I'd like ask a help.
I have to do following by DFSORT
There is a
Correct me if I am wrong but ICETOOL should work
Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com
On Feb 27, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
Guys,
Correct me if I am ring, what about ICETOOL
Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior
Minoru Massaki at IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
wrote on 02/27/2012 10:46:57 AM:
I have to do following by DFSORT
There is a data set which contains records with dsname, time, and
status as following
(dsname, time, status fields are fixed length)
The records are sorted
Yaeger-san,
thank very much for telling me the way what I sould code DFSORT control cards.
But unfortunately KEYBEGIN parameter became 'OPERAND DEFINER ERROR' on
my z/OS V1.12 (ADCD system) .
Then I have checked DFSORT Application Programming Guide for z/OS
V1.12, I could not find out KEYBEGIN
Yaeger-san,
thank very much for telling me the way what I sould code DFSORT control
cards.
But unfortunately KEYBEGIN parameter became 'OPERAND DEFINER ERROR' on my
z/OS V1.12 (ADCD system) .
Then I have checked DFSORT Application Programming Guide for z/OS V1.12, I
could
not find out
Koehler-san,
Thank you very much for giving me valuable information.
I'll check the PTF on a customer's z/OS V1.10 systems as well as our
z/OS V1.12 system.
I hope that the customer already has installed the PTF.
Again, Thank you a lot.
Minoru Massaki (M*M)
2012/2/28 Lizette Koehler
I added an additional DFSORT step which add sequence number in dsname
records before ICETOOL step.
So the ICETOOL without KEYBEGIN parameter got the right result.
//ADDSEQ EXEC PGM=ICEMAN
//SYSOUT DD SYSOUT=*
//SORTIN DD *
DSN-AAA08:00 OPEN
DSN-AAA08:10 CLOSE
DSN-AAA08:15
I would like to assign a sequence number to the input of ICETOOL, with a limit
on the maximum number - so for example, the number would increment from 1
to 6, then start at 1 again.
Can I combine the seqnum and MOD operations to do it in one pass, or do I
need to add sequence numbers, create
Tim Hare on IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu wrote on
05/24/2010 10:03:56 AM:
I would like to assign a sequence number to the input of ICETOOL,
with a limit
on the maximum number - so for example, the number would increment from 1
to 6, then start at 1 again.
Can I combine
Example input, RECFM=FB,LRECL=14:
DSK001 100
DSK002 3962002
DSK003 0001001
DSK005 200
DSK006 200
DSK008 010
DSK007 0001002
DSK004 0527192
Two fields: VOLSER in 1-6 and SIZE in 8-14.
I want to assign a 'sequence' number to the input from 1 to 4, so that I can
sort these into 4
, May 24, 2010 12:19 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: DFSORT question
Example input, RECFM=FB,LRECL=14:
DSK001 100
DSK002 3962002
DSK003 0001001
DSK005 200
DSK006 200
DSK008 010
DSK007 0001002
DSK004 0527192
Two fields: VOLSER in 1-6 and SIZE in 8-14.
I want to assign
Tim Hare on IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu wrote on
05/24/2010 12:18:56 PM:
Example input, RECFM=FB,LRECL=14:
DSK001 100
DSK002 3962002
DSK003 0001001
DSK005 200
DSK006 200
DSK008 010
DSK007 0001002
DSK004 0527192
Two fields: VOLSER in 1-6 and SIZE
I want to do something kind of weird and I'm wondering if DFSORT can do it
for me. I have a file where each record has three fields. Field 1 is the
z/OS SYSID. Field 2 is a TOD value. Field 3 is a number. The SYSID field can
only contain one of two values (C'DEV1' or C'LIH1'). I want my output
John McKown wrote on 04/15/2009 10:19:33 AM:
I want to do something kind of weird and I'm wondering if DFSORT can do
it
for me. I have a file where each record has three fields. Field 1 is the
z/OS SYSID. Field 2 is a TOD value. Field 3 is a number. The SYSID field
can
only contain one of two
Frank,
Thanks for the validation and the enhancement!
--
John
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:31:21 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote:
Is
there a system determined BLKSIZE on a PATH= DD statement, or is the sort
program left to deal with it?
see above
For a while, SDB always set BLKSIZE for PATH= to 80. This was much fixed
as a side effect of an APAR directed to JES,
On Jan 16, 2008, at 11:55 AM, Rick Fochtman wrote:
---snip---
I have not done a merge in *YEARS*, having said that I believe
(even if you concatenate) each concatenation has to be in a
higher sequence than the file ahead of the concatenation (all
records
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:25:43 -0500, Tom Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date:Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:16:53 -0600
From:Mark Zelden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DFSORT question MERGE w/SUM FIELDS=NONE
This worked (SYNCSORT). But I did have to specify LRECL, BLKSIZE,
and RECFM on the DDs
Date:Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:16:53 -0600
From:Mark Zelden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DFSORT question MERGE w/SUM FIELDS=NONE
This worked (SYNCSORT). But I did have to specify LRECL, BLKSIZE,
and RECFM on the DDs or I got RC16:
//SORTEXEC PGM=SORT
//SYSOUT DD SYSOUT
Ed Gould wrote on 01/15/2008 09:07:38 PM:
I believe (even
if you concatenate) each concatenation has to be in a higher
sequence than the file ahead of the concatenation (all records still
must be in the right sequence) so (if) you can concatenate the
records must be in sequence. I hope I said
---snip---
I have not done a merge in *YEARS*, having said that I believe (even if
you concatenate) each concatenation has to be in a higher sequence
than the file ahead of the concatenation (all records still must be in
the right sequence) so (if) you can
Excellent suggestion. However, IIRC, Hiperbatch doesn't support BSAM.
db
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ron Hawkins
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: DFSORT question
2
Yet another brain-fart... a bad week :-(
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Barry
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:46 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] DFSORT question
Excellent suggestion
The manual is unclear on this. First question: Is this supported? I.e.
will SORTOUT contain only one of the records with the duplicate key?
Second question: Which record will be kept? Random, the one read from
the lowest SORTINnn or the one read from the highest SORTINnn DD
statement?
--
John
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:25:23 -0600, McKown, John wrote:
The manual is unclear on this. First question: Is this supported? I.e.
will SORTOUT contain only one of the records with the duplicate key?
Second question: Which record will be kept? Random, the one read from
the lowest SORTINnn or the one
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Kopischke
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:00 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: DFSORT question MERGE w/SUM FIELDS=NONE
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:25:23 -0600, McKown, John
, DFSORT or CA-Sort.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Kopischke
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: DFSORT question MERGE w/SUM FIELDS=NONE
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:25:23 -0600, McKown
John McKown wrote on 01/15/2008 08:25:23 AM:
The manual is unclear on this. First question: Is this supported? I.e.
Yes, SUM FIELDS=NONE is supported for MERGE.
will SORTOUT contain only one of the records with the duplicate key?
Yes.
Second question: Which record will be kept? Random, the
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Yaeger
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:07 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: DFSORT question MERGE w/SUM FIELDS=NONE
[snip]
If NOEQUALS is in effect, it's random
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:05:40 -0600, McKown, John wrote:
Yes, I just didn't really see how EQUALS applies to a MERGE. Possibly
just lact of understanding on my part. I do understand how EQUALS
applies to SORT since SORT is only reading one input file, so which is
first makes sense to me. But MERGE
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:00:01 -0600, Dave Kopischke wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:25:23 -0600, McKown, John wrote:
The manual is unclear on this. First question: Is this supported? I.e.
will SORTOUT contain only one of the records with the duplicate key?
Second question: Which record will be
(Sorry if this appears twice - the first post seems to be taking forever to
get to the list, so I thought I'd try again.)
John McKown wrote on 01/15/2008 08:25:23 AM:
The manual is unclear on this. First question: Is this supported? I.e.
Yes, SUM FIELDS=NONE is supported for MERGE.
will
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:20:25 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Related question:
Does either product support sorting on N keys and eliminating all but
the first record with the first M (N) values identical? E.g. for all
records with identical Names, keep only the one with the most recent
Date.
An
Paul Gilmartin wrote on 01/15/2008 09:20:25 AM:
Related question:
Does either product support sorting on N keys and eliminating all but
the first record with the first M (N) values identical? E.g. for all
records with identical Names, keep only the one with the most recent
Date.
I've
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:27:45 -0600, Dave Kopischke wrote:
An awkward solution would be to sort it in date sequence first, then SORT
dedupe. Multiple passes and not very elegant. But for a small file, who cares
??
If the file is small enough, I do it with an editor.
Would it be better on the
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:20:25 -0600, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Does either product support sorting on N keys and eliminating all but
the first record with the first M (N) values identical? E.g. for all
records with identical Names, keep only the one with the most recent
Date.
Paul Gilmartin wrote on 01/15/2008 09:40:44 AM:
Would it be better on the first pass do sort on name ascending major;
date
descending minor? Then the DEDUPE second pass would be almost trivial.
You can do it in one pass with a DFSORT/ICETOOL job like this:
//S1EXEC PGM=ICETOOL
//TOOLMSG
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:40:44 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:27:45 -0600, Dave Kopischke wrote:
An awkward solution would be to sort it in date sequence first, then SORT
dedupe. Multiple passes and not very elegant. But for a small file, who
cares ??
If the file is small
Dave Kopischke wrote on 01/15/2008 09:57:20 AM:
Will MERGE operate on a single input file, or would it require
SORTIN02 DD DUMMY?
My manual doesn't state a minimum. It just says the maximum is 32 DD's
following the naming pattern SORTINnn. You can skip sequence numbers too
if
you want. My
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:46:02 -0600, Mark Zelden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Will DFSORT operate on Unix files?
Never tried it. I think it would if you got the JCL and sort statements
correct.
This worked (SYNCSORT). But I did have to specify LRECL, BLKSIZE,
and RECFM on the DDs or I got
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:16:53 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote:
Will DFSORT operate on Unix files?
Never tried it. I think it would if you got the JCL and sort statements
correct.
This worked (SYNCSORT). But I did have to specify LRECL, BLKSIZE,
and RECFM on the DDs or I got RC16:
Thanks for the
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:33:01 -0600, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:16:53 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote:
Will DFSORT operate on Unix files?
Never tried it. I think it would if you got the JCL and sort statements
correct.
This worked (SYNCSORT). But I did have to
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Zelden
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:17 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: DFSORT question MERGE w/SUM FIELDS=NONE
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:46:02 -0600, Mark Zelden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Reda, John
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: DFSORT question MERGE w/SUM FIELDS=NONE
Mark,
The zFS (or HFS) files appear to the sort as a sub-system data set and
can
On Jan 15, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Dave Kopischke wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:05:40 -0600, McKown, John wrote:
Yes, I just didn't really see how EQUALS applies to a MERGE. Possibly
just lact of understanding on my part. I do understand how EQUALS
applies to SORT since SORT is only reading one
This just came up. Which is better: to allocate more, smaller, SORTWKnn
DD statements, or fewer, larger, SORTWKnn DD statements, or does it not
really matter. By better, I mean: Which will result in a shorter run
time?.
The question came up due to a huge sort this weekend. DFSORT wanted to
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:30:08 -0600, McKown, John
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This just came up. Which is better: to allocate more, smaller, SORTWKnn
DD statements, or fewer, larger, SORTWKnn DD statements, or does it not
really matter. By better, I mean: Which will result in a shorter run
time?.
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 9:30 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: DFSORT question
This just came up. Which is better: to allocate more, smaller, SORTWKnn
DD statements, or fewer, larger
McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]..
.
This just came up. Which is better: to allocate more, smaller,
SORTWKnn
DD statements, or fewer, larger, SORTWKnn DD statements, or does it
not
really matter. By better, I mean: Which will result in a shorter
run
time?.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Betten
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:58 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: DFSORT question
There can be a slight decrease in performance when you
increase the number
There can be a slight decrease in performance when you increase the number
of sortworks. Going from say 32 to 48 or 64 probably won't have a major
impact. However, jumping to something like 128 or 255, you will see a more
noticable impact. If you want to send me the sysout from the sort, I can
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ITURIEL DO NASCIMENTO NETO
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:42 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: RES: DFSORT question
John,
In the past i've used DYNAUTO=IGNWKDD parameter
Discussion List
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Em nome de McKown, John
|Enviada em: segunda-feira, 14 de janeiro de 2008 13:21
|Para: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
|Assunto: Re: DFSORT question
|
|
|The reason I asked was that this is likely going to result in
|a demand that the default number of SORTWKnn DDs
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 12:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: DFSORT question
snip--
This just came up. Which
snip--
This just came up. Which is better: to allocate more, smaller, SORTWKnn
DD statements, or fewer, larger, SORTWKnn DD statements, or does it not
really matter. By better, I mean: Which will result in a shorter run
time?.
The question came up due to
On Jan 14, 2008, at 9:20 AM, McKown, John wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Betten
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:58 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: DFSORT question
There can be a slight decrease
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:34 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] DFSORT question
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 12:30
We are trying to sort DASD addresses and it puts the alpha addresses in
front of the numerics. I seem to remember a long time ago, we used an
alternate sort sequence for something like this.
Does anyone use this?
Thanks, Bobby Herring
Texas Farm Bureau Ins
-Original Message-
From: IBM
Bobby Herring wrote on 06/28/2007 09:38:34 AM:
We are trying to sort DASD addresses and it puts the alpha addresses in
front of the numerics. I seem to remember a long time ago, we used an
alternate sort sequence for something like this.
Does anyone use this?
If you want the numbers before
I think that I know the answer to this, but I'll ask here. Suppose that
I have an input file with variable length records. I use OPTION VLSHRT.
I then have a couple of OUTFIL statements, similar to:
SORT FIELDS=COPY
OPTION VLSHRT
OUTFIL
John McKown wrote on 06/11/2007 01:46:55 PM:
I think that I know the answer to this, but I'll ask here. Suppose that
I have an input file with variable length records. I use OPTION VLSHRT.
I then have a couple of OUTFIL statements, similar to:
SORT FIELDS=COPY
OPTION VLSHRT
OUTFIL
Frank Silven wrote:
I have a need to determine the actual maximum record length used
by a VB file..so when i have a LRECL=522,RECFM=VB then the
physical max record length=518 bytes...
But I need a solution which determines the actual maximum record length
used in a VB file, so the question is
Frank Silven wrote:
Can somebody pls help me with a problem I have when DFSORT reformats a VB
602 file
to a new VB 612 file having a leading record sequence nr
JCL step:
//SORT03 EXEC PGM=SORT,PARM='SIZE=MAX',COND=(0,NE)
//SORTIN DD DSN=XE01.XE40.GNROSC.DATA,DISP=SHR
//SORTOUT DD
68 matches
Mail list logo
