DSXchange

I have a shared container with two outputs. In one job that uses the shared container, one of the outputs goes straight to an OCI stage. The OCI is set to "Insert Rows Without Clearing", array size=250, rows per transaction=0. I want it to commit regularly, so I change the Rows Per Transaction to 250 (it lets me do this) and hit OKon the Dialog box (saves OK; no error). When I open up the OCI stage again, Rows Per Transaction is back to 0.

I have another job using the same container (one output direct to OCI) and it does the same.

I can output the Shared Container to a Transformer stage and propogate cols through to the OCI (ie. dummy transformer) and the problem is solved. I am concerned that there may be greater problems involving Shared Containers of which I should be aware.

Any ideas what is going on? I cannot find this discussed elsewhere in the forum.

I read thru the pdf manuals and didn't see anything. This sounds like a bug, because the metadata for the OCI stage link stores this setting, the shared container should have nothing to do with it.

If you want to confirm this, explode the shared container in a copy of the job and see if you are now allowed to keep your change. If it works, it looks like an undocumented "feature".

It's always cool if you find a real bug. It's like a trophy. 4 more and you become an Ace.

Have you tried this in Grid Style? That is, is it a bug in the OCI GUI, or something that is changed in the underlying mechanisms?

I converted the Shared Container to Local and was able to change the value to 250. I converted it back to shared and it was stuck on 250 - I couldn't change it to any other value!!!

It seems that the Rows Per Transaction attribute (unlike all of the other OCI attributes) is bound to the container outputs, not to the OCI. Could that be because the Rows Per Transaction is an "Active" attribute (it requires procedural code behind the scenes) and OCI is a passive stage?

I've noticed that Shared Container inputs and outputs don't show row run stats in Designer when connected to a passive stage. Coincidence?