Inheriting a job: IPC Partition fed direct to IPC Collector

Post questions here relative to DataStage Server Edition for such areas as Server job design, DS Basic, Routines, Job Sequences, etc.

Moderators: chulett, rschirm, roy

Post Reply
zbethem
Charter Member
Charter Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:12 pm
Contact:

Inheriting a job: IPC Partition fed direct to IPC Collector

Post by zbethem »

I've inherited a legacy job and am having a tough time deciding why it was built the way it was. I'm hoping that the community can shed some light on what I'm thinking.

Job design:
SRC --> Transformer --> IPC-part --> IPC-collect --> flat file

* note, that there is _nothing_ between the partitioner and collector.

My thoughts, the use of IPC-partition and IPC-collector is unnecessary. Can anyone think of any benefit for doing this?
kris007
Charter Member
Charter Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:38 pm
Location: Riverside, RI

Post by kris007 »

On a multiprocessor system, it makes sense, if the design is like this

Code: Select all



SRC---->>LinkPartitioner---->XFM1----->LinkCollector--->>FlatFile
                        |                                   ^
                        |                                   |
                         ----------->>XFM2--------
Use of LinkPartitionar and LinkCollector is not totally ruled out unless you are on a single processor system which I highly doubt. It helps when you are dealing with large amounts of data. But the order of placing them is different IMO.

HTH
Kris

Where's the "Any" key?-Homer Simpson
zbethem
Charter Member
Charter Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:12 pm
Contact:

Post by zbethem »

I agree with your statement, but I see that you have put XFM1/2 on each of the partition paths. That makes sense, as you're doing something and breaking the load out over processors.

Having the partitioner going straight to the collector with nothing in between is what doesn't make sense to me.
kcbland
Participant
Posts: 5208
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 8:56 am
Location: Lutz, FL
Contact:

Post by kcbland »

With Inter-processing checked on the job properties, the Transformer stage will essentially achieve the same effect. Remove the IPC stages and scratch your head one last time. Folks do strange things.
Kenneth Bland

Rank: Sempai
Belt: First degree black
Fight name: Captain Hook
Signature knockout: right upper cut followed by left hook
Signature submission: Crucifix combined with leg triangle
pranay
Participant
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:34 pm

Re: Inheriting a job: IPC Partition fed direct to IPC Collec

Post by pranay »

The LC and LP might have been placed consequently so as to improve the performance of the job. Or might be for renaming some columns.
Why don't u remove these componenets and compare the performance with the original one.
I think for cases like this Trial and Error is teh best solution.

Regards,
Pranay
zbethem wrote:I've inherited a legacy job and am having a tough time deciding why it was built the way it was. I'm hoping that the community can shed some light on what I'm thinking.

Job design:
SRC --> Transformer --> IPC-part --> IPC-collect --> flat file

* note, that there is _nothing_ between the partitioner and collector.

My thoughts, the use of IPC-partition and IPC-collector is unnecessary. Can anyone think of any benefit for doing this?
Pranay
Seatte, WA
Post Reply