Carry forward rows that do not match in Hashed file

dsusersaj · Post by **dsusersaj** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:26 am

kumar_s wrote:Ok, paste the exact constrain that you have mentioned in Transformer. ...

NOT(DSLink11.NOTFOUND)

dsusersaj · Post by **dsusersaj** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:29 am

kumar_s wrote:Ok, paste the exact constrain that you have mentioned in Transformer. ...

(DSLink11.NOTFOUND) This is the consrtaint.

DSLink11 - look up link
DSLink10- main input

dsusersaj · Post by **dsusersaj** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:29 am

Please ignpre the below post.The previous on eis the right one.

dsusersaj wrote:
kumar_s wrote:Ok, paste the exact constrain that you have mentioned in Transformer. ...

NOT(DSLink11.NOTFOUND)

kumar_s · Post by **kumar_s** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:30 am

Not of NotFound = Found. Use just DSLink11.NOTFOUND.
Wondering, how did it match the first time if the Hashed file is empty.

dsusersaj · Post by **dsusersaj** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:31 am

I am sorry i did give dslink11.notfound.
I pasted the wrong this first.

kumar_s wrote:Not of NotFound = Found. Use just DSLink11.NOTFOUND.
Wondering, how did it match the first time if the Hashed file is empty. ...

dsusersaj · Post by **dsusersaj** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:34 am

One more info. From DSLink11 I am not taking any value. This is just for look up.if the look up does not match, just forward all the values from Dslink10. This is waht I want to do.

dsusersaj · Post by **dsusersaj** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:42 am

To avoid any confusion. ..
The constraint in my job is DSLink11.NOTFOUND.
Still the rows doesnot pass the transformer. The table doesnt have them now.

dsusersaj wrote:I am sorry i did give dslink11.notfound.
I pasted the wrong this first.

kumar_s wrote:Not of NotFound = Found. Use just DSLink11.NOTFOUND.
Wondering, how did it match the first time if the Hashed file is empty. ...

dsusersaj · Post by **dsusersaj** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:48 am

Knock Knock!!

dsusersaj wrote:To avoid any confusion. ..
The constraint in my job is DSLink11.NOTFOUND.
Still the rows doesnot pass the transformer. The table doesnt have them now.

dsusersaj wrote:I am sorry i did give dslink11.notfound.
I pasted the wrong this first.

kumar_s wrote:Not of NotFound = Found. Use just DSLink11.NOTFOUND.
Wondering, how did it match the first time if the Hashed file is empty. ...

dsusersaj · Post by **dsusersaj** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:43 pm

The problem is resolved. I just directed the look up table's data to a hashed file. I was thinking table as reference would work the same way as hashed file. But it was not though.

With hashed file , isnull works..

Thanks all.

kumar_s · Post by **kumar_s** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:53 pm

Good that you resolved it. Table in reference link should work same as Hashed file in this matter. May be other changes in the jobs should be noted down.
Not sure what is DSLink11. If you are checking for Null, check for the column which will be populated with Null when not found.

chulett · Post by **chulett** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:02 pm

I'm curious why everything (subject, first post, etc) states you were having a problem with a hashed file lookup and now suddenly it works if you use a hashed file?

dsusersaj · Post by **dsusersaj** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:26 pm

I was also thinking the same that hashed file would work the same way as table. This strong belief made me post the way I did. Referencing table as hashed file.But in the later post I clarified it as table I believe.

kumar_s wrote:Good that you resolved it. Table in reference link should work same as Hashed file in this matter. May be other changes in the jobs should be noted down.
Not sure what is DSLink11. If you are check ...

chulett · Post by **chulett** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:41 am

Umm, no. All you managed to accomplish by not stating your problem accurately was cause two pages of thrashing to occur when it could have been solved in one or two responses had you correctly described what you were doing.

Please keep that in mind in the future. The more information and the more pertinent details we have, the better we can help you solve your issue.

dsusersaj · Post by **dsusersaj** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:16 pm

Hmm.Get that. Thanks all.

chulett wrote:Umm, no. All you managed to accomplish by not stating your problem accurately was cause two pages of thrashing to occur when it could have been solved in one or two responses had you correctly described what you were doing.

Please keep that in mind in the future. The more information and the more pertinent details we have, the better we can help you solve your issue.