DSXchange

Hi,

I want to transfer a complete batch of data over a link, instead of row by row. (The batch of data might be result of a query or say a lookup).
Usually what happens is that it just send the last row of a batch of rows.

Pelase suggest sth.

Thx.

Not enough information. DataStage server jobs typically send rows; the number of rows in each "batch" is set by "array size" or some similarly-named property. If what you claim is true there is some problem with your configuration; you need to involve your support provider. There is no reason to lose rows during a transfer.

Do you get any warning messages? How did you determine that "the last of each batch of rows" was being transmitted? Was this into DataStage, out of DataStage, or both? To what value is array size property set?

'Complete batch'? I'm guessing from your 'usually it just send the last row of a batch of rows' comment that you want a lookup to return a 'multi-row result set'. If that's the case, there are pleny of conversations here on the subject that a search would turn up. And one of the first things you'll find is the fact that only two stages have that functionality - the ODBC stage and the UV stage.

chulett wrote: 'Complete batch'? I'm guessing from your 'usually it just send the last row of a batch of rows' comment that you want a lookup to return a 'multi-row result set'. If that's the case, there are pleny of conversations here on the subject that a search would turn up. And one of the first things you'll find is the fact that only two stages have that functionality - the ODBC stage and the UV stage.

Yes, In my case lookup will return a 'multi-row result set'.
Can UV stage be used to connect to DB2?

Don't see why not as long as there are DB2 drivers... but I see you are having issues trying to do so. I don't have access to any DB2 instances so can't really help there.

UV stage can not connect to DB2 but ODBC can, and still deliver multi-row result sets from lookup. This is addressed in your other post.

Doh! I saw the 'UV' in the question but translated that to 'ODBC' in my head when replying... probably because I had just come from the other post.