|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Dale Robertson
New User
Joined: 21 Jun 2013
Posts: 44
Location: U.S.A.
|
|
|
|
| Pandora-Box wrote: |
Is there no SYNCSORT Developer in forum thats sad :'(
A person to share us new logic and commands of the latest version will come in handy for all users |
What would you like to know? I've been doing SyncSort for roughly 35 years.
Actually most of the extremely difficult items in SyncSort really should be done in a high-level language. The best is SAS in order to save yourself a boatload of grief including the elimination of extremely cryptic code. The main item that SAS replaces is Boolean Algebraic items like joins. But the secondary thing that SAS replaces is merges.
SyncSort/DFSORT merges aren't real merges like merging from a 4 lane highway to a 3 lane highway. They are interleaves like shuffling a card deck. SAS does real merges and in fact does SQL which can get tricky unless you understand the difference between a merge with/without cartessian coordinates.
Pandora,
This big thing is to use the right tool for the job. Never use a crescent wrench to hammer a nail!!
So for joins you really never should use SyncSort. You should use SAS if you have it.
r
"Baby, I'm going to do some stitching like you've never seen before!!"
--Hawkeye Pearce - M.A.S.H.
Edited to avoid Copyright issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
daveporcelan
Active Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 792
Location: Pennsylvania
|
|
|
|
Dale,
| Quote: |
| So for joins you really never should use SyncSort. You should use SAS if you have it |
That is really a matter of opinion. I would give the exact opposite advice.
I would not touch SAS with a ten foot pole.
I find it difficult to work with, and never need it.
I think the functionality of Syncsort is excellent. The manuals however are pretty crappy.
I think it IS the right tool for joins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dale Robertson
New User
Joined: 21 Jun 2013
Posts: 44
Location: U.S.A.
|
|
|
|
| daveporcelan wrote: |
Dale,
| Quote: |
| So for joins you really never should use SyncSort. You should use SAS if you have it |
That is really a matter of opinion. I would give the exact opposite advice.
I would not touch SAS with a ten foot pole.
I find it difficult to work with, and never need it.
I think the functionality of Syncsort is excellent. The manuals however are pretty crappy.
I think it IS the right tool for joins. |
Dave,
For simple 2-way joins Syncsort is probably just fine and in fact can save a programmer a bit more coding if he's only going to create an output sequential file. Anything more complicated then a programmer might think twice and realize that SAS uses a pretty good version of SQL which is very functional and not really as difficult as all that.
As for the manuals on joins they might be a bit cumbersome however with practice - and let's face it that's the key - a programmer can usually get along just fine.
r
"I'm going to fix it with my crescent hammer."
--Submariner Creed.
"The CIA has great benefits but you have to keep from getting killed. You see that's the key to the benefits program."
--Vince Ricardo [Peter Falk] - The Inlaws |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dale Robertson
New User
Joined: 21 Jun 2013
Posts: 44
Location: U.S.A.
|
|
|
|
| Bill Woodger wrote: |
SORT topics here outnumber SAS topics perhaps 50 to one. I can't remember a SAS topic where someone wanted to do a JOIN.
If SAS has special traffic-control features, fine, but we've not had any questions on that either.
Opinion is not what this site is about.
SyncSort manuals are copyright. If you have SyncSort manuals as an individual, they are not for distribution. |
Bill,
Well you should have some questions.
That's one of the main items I see on this site is opinions. Dave just gave his. I used to think the way Dave does too.
SyncSort manuals are most assuredly for distribution - if the programmer or company that the programmer works for has the product!!!! They are just not for sale except from SyncSort. That's a fact not an opinion. If you don't believe it then call and ask.
Whoops! The thing about SyncSort these days is that they are now controlled by lawyers not technicians like in the olden days. So who knows any longer. What's a programmer to do with his old manuals - a minus one and beyond?
All kidding aside, erring to caution is probably best as you alluded to. If a programmer works for a company with the product then by rights he should simply talk to his sales rep and download a copy of the Programmer's Guide and the Installation Guide to his work P.C.
r
"I'm getting an upset mind balance."
--Author Carl Deuker
"Calm yourself General Vladimirov."
--First Secretary - Firefox.
"Calm myself? Calm myself? When your stupidity, your stupidity..."
--General Vladimirov. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19243
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
SAS has incerdible processing power for functional/logical/statistical/etc "things". I have not yet seen where it is a good choice for massive amounts of data (hundreds of millions and billions of records) being processed. If one is using lots of data (and this is more and more common), i seriously doubt SAS can even come close to Syncsort's performance. SQL notoriously takes more internal cycles then other forms os ordering data. DB2 for example no longer uses DB2 code to sort - it now invokes DFSORT under the covers.
I have to go with using Syncsort over SAS for big merging. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dale Robertson
New User
Joined: 21 Jun 2013
Posts: 44
Location: U.S.A.
|
|
|
|
| dick scherrer wrote: |
Hello,
SAS has incerdible processing power for functional/logical/statistical/etc "things". I have not yet seen where it is a good choice for massive amounts of data (hundreds of millions and billions of records) being processed. If one is using lots of data (and this is more and more common), i seriously doubt SAS can even come close to Syncsort's performance. SQL notoriously takes more internal cycles then other forms os ordering data. DB2 for example no longer uses DB2 code to sort - it now invokes DFSORT under the covers.
I have to go with using Syncsort over SAS for big merging. |
That's the thing!!! SAS invokes SyncSort!!! And in fact SAS uses SyncSort's Accelerator called PROC SYNCSORT which is even better.
Some years ago I did a quick and dirty comparison of approx 30M rows. I used SAS's sort - which sucks - and it took upwards of half an hour of elapsed time to run. SyncSort took 13 minutes and PROC SYNCSORT took 6 minutes!!
But that's not the big thing actually that I was at first writing about. I was writing about complicated items like multiple joins from multiple files where a programmer can do things like install indexes.
As for large files of course a programmer must do his best to trim things down before doing really fancy coding and of course that's where utilities like SyncSort or GENER or even FILEMAX comes in.
r |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19243
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hi Guys,
It looks like we've gone somewhat away from the topic . . .
I believe what was asked has been more than answered . . .
Might we all discontinue?
d |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GaganGarg
Active User
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 134
Location: India
|
|
|
|
Sorry for replying on the older post. But for others information, "?" is not working with "SYNCSORT FOR Z/OS 1.4.0.1R"
| Code: |
SYNCSORT FOR Z/OS 1.4.0.1R U.S. PATENTS: XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX (C) 2010 SYNCSO
XXXXXXX SYSTEM z/OS 1.12.0
SYNCSORT LICENSED FOR CPU SERIAL NUMBER YYYYYY, MODEL ZZZZZZZ LICEN
SYSIN :
JOINKEYS FILE=F1,FIELDS=(1,1,A)
JOINKEYS FILE=F2,FIELDS=(1,1,A)
JOIN UNPAIRED
OPTION COPY
REFORMAT FIELDS=(F1:1,80,F2:1,80,?)
*
INREC IFOUTLEN=80,IFTHEN=(WHEN=(161,1,SS,EQ,C'B,2'),BUILD=(81,80))
WER268A REFORMAT STATEMENT: SYNTAX ERROR
WER211B SYNCSMF CALLED BY SYNCSORT; RC=0000
WER449I SYNCSORT GLOBAL DSM SUBSYSTEM ACTIVE
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nic Clouston
Global Moderator
Joined: 10 May 2007
Posts: 2454
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
|
|
|
| GaganGarg - I suggest you read through the posts on page 2 of this topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Woodger
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 09 Mar 2011
Posts: 7309
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the "other" SyncSort site with the same release/version did have a "patch" after all?
Worth checking with SyncSort support for final resolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Woodger
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 09 Mar 2011
Posts: 7309
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
| Dale Robertson wrote: |
| Pandora-Box wrote: |
Is there no SYNCSORT Developer in forum thats sad :'(
A person to share us new logic and commands of the latest version will come in handy for all users |
What would you like to know? I've been doing SyncSort for roughly 35 years.
[...] |
This is to whom Pandora-box was referring, not just someone who has used SyncSort but prefers doing non-trivial tasks in high-level languages instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
