Display column

EJRoufs · Post by **EJRoufs** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 8:14 am

We just very recently upgraded from version 6 to version 7.1. In version 6, we always had a problem with the Display column. For example. We're reading in character fields that are all size 5, let's say. We put our Displays at size 7 (usually a mistake, but anyways.....). Suddenly, none of our fields read in correctly. They all read in as if they are defined as Character 7, when actually they are Character 5. It is going by the "Display" size rather than the actual size we have defined.

I was hoping this was a bug in version 6, and it would be fixxed for version 7. It is not. And in fact, it appears to have gotten worse. In version 6, the Display size was used to show how much of the the data you wanted to "Display" when you viewed the file in DataStage, and that is how we used it. Apparently, that is not the case anymore. It always displays only the first byte, regardless of our Display size. Another bug?

Is this a known bug? Or are we just using it the wrong way? As minor as this sounds, you'd be surprised how many people make this mistake, and how much time gets spent trying to track it down sometimes. Because everything seems to be defined correctly, but usually someone just forgot to update the Display to match the Size.

mhester · Post by **mhester** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 8:23 am

Since you did not identify what type of stage you are using my assumption is that you are describing a fixed-width seq file. If so, then I "believe" it has always relied on the display length and not actual size.

Regards,

chulett · Post by **chulett** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 8:25 am

On the issue of "Display Size", I think you'll find this has always been the case - it's just that it is being more tightly enforced. There was something in the readme about this, I believe.

It was annoying to see the 'View Data' issue you noted when we upgraded to 7.0.1 where all columns are minimized. You'll be happy to know that it seems to be "fixed" in 7.5, or at least it looks that way from the minimal amount of testing I've been able to do.

EJRoufs · Post by **EJRoufs** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 8:35 am

chulett wrote:On the issue of "Display Size", I think you'll find this has always been the case - it's just that it is being more tightly enforced. There was something in the readme about this, I believe. .

So, basically, the "Display Size" always needs to match the "Length"? If so, why do they even have both for fields that you don't use "Scale" on?

On a related question, is there an easy way to copy all of the "Length"s and paste them into the "Display Size" column? :>

Thanks for your quick response. We'll have to see about upgrading past version 7.1. :>

ray.wurlod · Post by **ray.wurlod** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 10:13 pm

To clarify, Display Width has two purposes. This has been the case since version 1.0. The "minimize" in version 7.x was a glitch.

One is to set the initial display width for the Data Browser.

The other, applicable only to Sequential File stage where the format specifies fixed width, is to be the storage location for the actual widths. As far as I am aware this has always been the case. SQL Type and Precision (and Scale) have always been ignored for Sequential File stages; after all, there is only one data type in a text file; text. The SQL info is recorded in the Columns grid so that, as metadata propagate along links, downstream processing will have access to them.