|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
ramsri
Active User
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Posts: 380
Location: India
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I want to get similar results of SuperCE with Syncsort when comparing two files. May I please know how to achieve it? I thought of using JOIN but it sorts file on supplied key thus does not provide expected output.
Please help.
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19243
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
If you want SuperCE output, use SuperCE . . .
Why would you try to force this on a sort product . . .  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ramsri
Active User
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Posts: 380
Location: India
|
|
|
|
Because we want to find such records and fix them thus, want to use it in our batch process. SuperCE is not showing its entire length. So, looking for SORT solution !
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pandora-Box
Global Moderator
.jpg)
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1592
Location: Andromeda Galaxy
|
|
|
|
| Are you trying to find the records that are INSERTED and DELETED without changing the sequence of records? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ramsri
Active User
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Posts: 380
Location: India
|
|
|
|
| Yes Pandora-Box ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arun Raj
Moderator
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 2481
Location: @my desk
|
|
|
|
ramsri,
If you can explain what exactly you are trying to achieve, may be someone here can help you out. Can you show some sample input and expected output in code tags. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ramsri
Active User
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Posts: 380
Location: India
|
|
|
|
Arun, here are the details.
File-1 - LRECL=80,RECFM=FB
| Code: |
----+----1----+----2----+----3----+
2012@@001 ABC12314002014/04/21 F
2013##091 YBC49839502014/05/05 R
2011**FUC HCP11294012014/04/28 G
|
File-2 - LRECL=80,RECFM=FB
| Code: |
----+----1----+----2----+----3----+
15@@ABC12300100831200410521513000YR
15**HCP11209100831200410503103050YK
15##YBC498HR300831200410521513000YR
|
On the above content, I used SuperCE utility (foreground). Screens given below:
1st screen:
| Code: |
PSYS SuperCE Utility
Command ===>
New DS Name . . . 'TINPP.USERS.FILE1IN'
Old DS Name . . . 'TINPP.USER.FILE2IN'
PDS Member List (blank/pattern - member list, * - compare all)
(Leave New/Old DSN "blank" for concatenated-uncataloged-password panel)
Compare Type Listing Type Display Output
2 1. File 2 1. OVSUM 1 1. Yes
2. Line 2. Delta 2. No
3. Word 3. CHNG 3. Cond
4. Byte 4. Long 4. UPD
5. Nolist
Listing DSN . . . . SYSPSYS.SUPERC.LIST
Process Options . .
Statements Dsn . . . SUPERC.STMTS
Update DSN . . . . .
|
SUPERC.STMTS
| Code: |
****** ******************
000001 CMPCOLMN 14:19
000002 CMPCOLMO 5:10
****** ******************
|
Final Output:
| Code: |
********************************* Top of Data **********************************
ISRSUPC - MVS/PDF FILE/LINE/WORD/BYTE/SFOR COMPARE UTILITY- ISPF FOR z/OS 2014/04/16 7.43 PAGE 1
NEW: TINPP.USERS.FILE1IN OLD: TINPP.USERS.FILE2IN
LISTING OUTPUT SECTION (LINE COMPARE)
ID SOURCE LINES TYPE LEN N-LN# O-LN#
----+----1----+----2----+----3----+----4----+----5----+----6----+----7----+----8
MAT= 1
D - 15**HCP11209100831200410503103050YK DEL= 1 00002 00002
MAT= 1
I - 2011**FUC HCP11294012014/04/28 G INS= 1 00003 00004
ISRSUPC - MVS/PDF FILE/LINE/WORD/BYTE/SFOR COMPARE UTILITY- ISPF FOR z/OS 2014/04/16 7.43 PAGE 2
NEW: TINPP.USERS.FILE1IN OLD: TINPP.USERS.FILE2IN
LINE COMPARE SUMMARY AND STATISTICS
2 NUMBER OF LINE MATCHES 2 TOTAL CHANGES (PAIRED+NONPAIRED CHNG)
0 REFORMATTED LINES 0 PAIRED CHANGES (REFM+PAIRED INS/DEL)
1 NEW FILE LINE INSERTIONS 1 NON-PAIRED INSERTS
1 OLD FILE LINE DELETIONS 1 NON-PAIRED DELETES
3 NEW FILE LINES PROCESSED
3 OLD FILE LINES PROCESSED
LISTING-TYPE = DELTA COMPARE-COLUMNS = 14:19 LONGEST-LINE = 80
COMPARE-COLUMNS = 5:10
PROCESS OPTIONS USED: NONE
THE FOLLOWING PROCESS STATEMENTS (USING COLUMNS 1:72) WERE PROCESSED:
CMPCOLMN 14:19
CMPCOLMO 5:10
******************************** Bottom of Data ********************************
|
Like this, I want to get same or similar results with SORT. Please help.
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Woodger
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 09 Mar 2011
Posts: 7309
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Arun, make sure you get everything to line up. Sometimes we regret what we ask (or at least the response to it) :-)
Ramsri,
Can you show representative sample input data. That means data which covers everything you want to deal with. Show expected output for that sample.
Then can you first show what you tried with SuperCE and why it didn't work for you, what output you received and what was deficient in that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daveporcelan
Active Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 792
Location: Pennsylvania
|
|
|
|
If you got the same output with SORT, what would you do with it?
Are you running your SuperCE in Batch now?
Do you realize how difficult you make it to help you out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daveporcelan
Active Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 792
Location: Pennsylvania
|
|
|
|
I have used these Process Options, they may help you:
| Code: |
| Process Options . . FMVLNS LONGLN UPDLDEL |
I also run in batch often:
| Code: |
Enter "/" to select option Execution Mode Output Mode
Bypass selection list 2 1. Foreground 1 1. View
2. Batch 2. Browse |
I do not think you will get SORT to work the same way SuperCE works.
Instead get SuperCE to give you what you need, then add a step to accomplish your final goal.
What that is only you know since you will not share. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ramsri
Active User
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Posts: 380
Location: India
|
|
|
|
Dave, thanks but I am getting B37 error when used "UPDLDEL" option. Can you please give me a link where these 3 options explained and how they are useful. Are they to be used in batch mode only?
Bill, It is the only scenario and since many of us are not familiar with SuperCE in batch App Lead asked if it was possible to achieve in SORT (well known product) ! Reviewer asked lots of question when I gave the write-up (code also) for review and till date could not get it TEST or FIX but running it outside and fixing data !
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daveporcelan
Active Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 792
Location: Pennsylvania
|
|
|
|
To resolve your B37 you probably need to delete and re-allocate your Listing DSN, with more space. More width too in order accomate longer lines from the options I mentioned.
These options are available in both batch and online.
To see the options and descriptions, put your cursor on the the word Options at the top of the screen and hit enter. You will see the following. Choose 2 and hit enter. Your can select the optios you want with a slash. The three I chose are described there along with many others.
| Code: |
Menu Utilities Options Help
________________________________________________
| 2 1. Edit Statements |
Command ===> | 2. Process Options |
| 3. Profiles and Defaults |
_________________________________________________ |
I strongly suggest you and others learn SuperCe beter, not try to replicate its functions with sort.
This is the last time I ask this question. If you do not answer, I am done, and I suggest the moderator lock this topic.
If you got the same output with SORT, what would you do with it?
We still do not know what you end result is (other than have sort work like SuperCE is is not a good idea).
Help us help you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbzTHEdinosauer
Global Moderator
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 6966
Location: porcelain throne
|
|
|
|
The TS mentioned length, which i interpret to mean
the longest output possible is shorter than the actual record length.
I have worked around this problem by
use SUPERCE which will provide the sequence number of the record
(the sequence in the file - which is the same as the record number)
and wrote a program to
interpret the SUPERCE output
and using the record number, extracting the relevant records from both files. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daveporcelan
Active Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 792
Location: Pennsylvania
|
|
|
|
DBZ,
I agree with your interpretation.
That is why I presented this option:
| Code: |
Listing Control Options
WIDE - Up to 80 columns side-by-side. Line length = 202/203 or
NARROW - Up to 55 columns side-by-side. Line length = 132/133 or
/ LONGLN - Lists up to 176 columns. Line length = 202/203. |
He does mention his lrecl = 80 however.
We must think alike as I created a similar extract tool.
I took it a step further, doing a byte by byte compare of the two extracted records, putting an asterik under mismatched bytes.
I am just fustrested trying to help the TS, when he refuses to provide a good example of what he is really trying to acomplish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbzTHEdinosauer
Global Moderator
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 6966
Location: porcelain throne
|
|
|
|
Dave,
I missed the 80....,
and (as you) am completely confused with his statement,
that the entire length is not shown.
sorry to have added confusion to this topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19243
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
If one reviews other topics from ramsri, it is quite common to have to drag info need into the topic . . .
And this is after 5 years . . .
d |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terry Heinze
JCL Moderator
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Richfield, MN, USA
|
|
|
|
5 years, 5 months, 29 days -- but then who's counting?!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daveporcelan
Active Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 792
Location: Pennsylvania
|
|
|
|
OMG, I can not beleive I got into a topic he started.
I warned Bill off of him just recently.
I wonder if this is real, or is he still on 'the bench'?
My head hurts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
