|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
liju_j_m
New User
Joined: 11 Jul 2007
Posts: 3
Location: India
|
|
|
|
Hey,
I've breezed through some Easytrieve routines off late, but ain't anything close to an amateur. So could anybody here please explain why easytrieve scores over Syncsort? Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19244
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello and welcome to the forums,
| Quote: |
| explain why easytrieve scores over Syncsort |
Who says it does? On what are the 2 compared?
Syncsort is for sorting, merging, copying, and simple reporting. Easytrieve is not for sorting and is basically an entire "language".
If you clarify where they are compared, someone here may be able to expalin . . . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
liju_j_m
New User
Joined: 11 Jul 2007
Posts: 3
Location: India
|
|
|
|
| Hmmmm....that was helpful. Well let me give you an instance here......What would you choose to sort a VSAM file with over 11 million records??and why??? Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William Thompson
Global Moderator
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 3156
Location: Tucson AZ
|
|
|
|
| liju_j_m wrote: |
| Hmmmm....that was helpful. Well let me give you an instance here......What would you choose to sort a VSAM file with over 11 million records??and why??? Thanks |
Figuring the local sort (Syncsort/DFSort/etc) is called by EZT (when needed), it may be a toss-up (depending on which actually reads the records)....... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19244
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
You would not typically use eztrieve for a standalone sort - especially a sort of that many records.
It would not be a choice - that choice would never be considered - if the requirement was put as needing to sort 11mil records, i know of no one who would propose using eztrieve 
Again, where did you see something that compared the 2? They have very little in common to compare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William Thompson
Global Moderator
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 3156
Location: Tucson AZ
|
|
|
|
| liju_j_m wrote: |
| can syncsort handle a load of 10+ million records??? |
Syncsort has extensions that allow efficient handling of large volumes.... Look at the MAXSORT chapter:
| Quote: |
MAXSORT is a maximum capacity sort designed to sort amounts of data that are too large
for an ordinary sorting technique to process. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stodolas
Active Member
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Posts: 632
Location: Wisconsin
|
|
|
|
| I have used SYNCSORT to sort a file with over 30+ million records without specifying the MAXSORT option. Way faster to code the control card than it was to put together an Easytrieve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19244
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
And, i'll wager, it ran using far less resources than an easytrieve would have. . .
I'm still very curious where this
| Quote: |
| why easytrieve scores over Syncsort |
came from. . . and in what context it was presented. Only thing that comes to mind is that easytrieve would "score over" Syncsort on report writing capabilities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
liju_j_m
New User
Joined: 11 Jul 2007
Posts: 3
Location: India
|
|
|
|
| so that takes away a misconception in my mind.......thanks a load for all inputs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19244
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
You're welcome  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G-Johnson
New User
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 20
Location: USA
|
|
|
|
| easytrieve allows one line of source to code a sort, using the field names defined in the program. from a development view, this is much quicker than creating a additional sort program...and easytrieve uses/calls Syncsort for it's sorts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19244
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
| Quote: |
| easytrieve allows one line of source to code a sort, using the field names defined in the program. from a development view, this is much quicker than creating a additional sort program |
Not really. There may be much more to an ezt file definition and the code than a SORT FIELDS= statement. Given that the question involved 11million records, the amount of machine resources should also be considered over maybe 15 minutes of developer time.
This is not to say that no sorting should be done with ezt. What should be done is to evaluate the requirement and use whichever is the better alternative.
| Quote: |
| and easytrieve uses/calls Syncsort for it's sorts. |
Only on the systems that use Syncsort - many use another sort product. Ezt invokes whatever the sort product for the system is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
socker_dad
Active User
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 177
Location: Seattle, WA
|
|
|
|
Easytrieve is a major resource hog. Use it for what it's designed: reports.
For an example - I consulted at a place that had declared Easytrieve Plus to be their development language because it was so easy to whip out a program.
By time my company came on board, their "nightly" cycle was running 7 1/2 days straight.
I took on one Easytrieve job that was running an average of 24 - 26 clock hours: all it did was a key read of 4 different IMS files and two flat files and produced a "nightly" transaction file that was used throughout the rest of the cycle.
I rewrote this hog in COBOL and cut execution time from 24-26 hours to 2-4 minutes (clock time, not CPU). They were stunned and it took them three weeks of testing to verify that my new program actually worked.
The moral of the story is: Use the right tool for the right job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
