DSXchange

Hi,

I would like to know your expert opinion.

I'm using DataStage for almost 2 years and I've always used "Server Job" Job Control to sequence my jobs (->in BASIC DataStage) and I use routines to :
- check if a file exists before launch
- launch jobs
- analyse job Status and logs and generate my own logs in a flat file.
- etc ...

I know, I can do the same in a Job Sequence by adding a Routine Activity before and after each Job Activity. But this solution doesn't look "clean" to me.

What is the "standard" solution ??

Thanks a lot.
Thibault

P.S : I hope the answer can't be found easily because I wasn't able to ...

#@$%@#$%^&*$^*!@#$@#$^%^*(%^(&*%^&*
In English,
What is that you want to achieve through Job Sequence which you think its not feasible.

( I think speaking french is a very bad idea. I hope you won't be punished for that )

OK, there's no miracle solution. Too bad ...
Merci

kumar_s wrote:#@$%@#$%^&*$^*!@#$@#$^%^*(%^(&*%^&*
In English,
What is that you want to achieve through Job Sequence which you think its not feasible.

I didn't say I can't do it through Job Sequence, I said that the solution I found is not "clean" and I was hoping for better solutions : a "standard" solution ...

Hi Thibal,

What makes you say that the solution is not clean. You should support your statements with facts rather than accusing the job sequence.

I think that job sequences have evolved over time and they work charmingly these days.

On a second thought, people just choose between 'Job sequences' and 'Job Control' depending on their comfort level with either one of them.

It would be great if you could explain why you think that job sequences are not clean.

You always put some amazing emoticons on your posts. How do you do that? Good Emoticons.

Thanks,
Naveen.

I think it's not clean because for 1 job activity, there are 2 routine activities around.
So, if you add other jobs, it becames complicated 3 times faster (my sentence doesn't look like english )

With all these routine activities, the presentation isn't clean. I'm agree that Job Control presentation is worst ...

That's all I want to say, I don't criticize Job Sequence. I was just asking if a simpler solution exists.



( For the emoticons, I just use the [IMG] and insert my own smiley)

naveen,

it is obvious that Job Controls are more flexible than Job Sequences!

You can't dynamically set parameters to a job activity, maintenance is harder when you have to add a parameter to all the jobs, etc...

But Job Sequences are very useful for many ways!

I was saying that there is no miracle solution.

My way :

Use Job Sequence when you have to treat small treatment units.

Otherwise, use Job Controls.

gbusson wrote:My way :

Use Job Sequence when you have to treat small treatment units.

Otherwise, use Job Controls.

It's loud and clear

gbusson wrote:naveen,

it is obvious that Job Controls are more flexible than Job Sequences!

You can't dynamically set parameters to a job activity, maintenance is harder when you have to add a parameter to all the jobs, etc...

Still parameter values can be passed dynamically from shell scripts using dsjob -param to the sequence...
Its all in the way we use the available technology. Still people are comfortable to use PL/SQL for whole ETL process. It varies and depends on the person to person. And how effective you use it.
You can drag and drop the job into pallet click on compile to get an instant job Control for the whole set.
You can built a built a long time consuming, Robust job control. Option is in the hand of beholder.

kumar,

Thibal would like to know some opinions about job sequences, that's what i did.

gbusson wrote:kumar,

Thibal would like to know some opinions about job sequences, that's what i did.

And again, there is nothing wrong i said about you post.
I just want to quote that there is the possibility to pass the parameter values to Job sequence it self. :D
After all, this is a forum where we can all share our knowledge and thoughts and opinion among all.

I am beginning to believe that job sequences (at version 7.5) can do pretty much anything you need, with a bit of care and forethought. Using job sequences will offer some protection against the day when "they" decide to drop the use of BASIC (though that's not any time soon).

Bonne chance!

99.999% of the time, I have found the benefit from moving to a visual approach to job control is priceless. I think this even applies to putting RoutineActivity stages around each JobActivity stage. You can convey your intent visually with proper naming conventions. In traditional JCL, we called them comments.

Still, I find many developers only scratching the surface of the capabilities of job sequences. So, I dare you all to stop writing JCL for a month, and force yourselves to implement job control with sequences. It is worth the effort for you, and especially for the next person who must support your code.

I've met that challenge in the last eight out of eight months.
Guess that makes the point a strongly as anything else I may have posted.

My client forces me to use Job Sequencers.

Reason: We can use those sequencers as part of ETL Technical Specification Document. The visual view can help to understand the flow of the DS Jobs and same can be used as part of documentation.

Still the question remains if there are lot of activities and jobs its simply difficult to go for sequencers.

I have worked on modules which involved around 150 - 200 jobs running one shot. At such place I can't go for sequencers.

So I think if your module involves around 20 to 25 activities go for sequencers, O.W. Job Control (BASIC code) is always a Best way.