shared container

dsscholar · Post by **dsscholar** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:23 am

Hi all,

i am using shared container in my project. The output of the container is EDW_LOAD_KEY column, which i gave in the shared container output link and also all the columns from the input link. But it shows metadata doesnt match with both the links. When i have only that column,the validation is successful. But i want to have all the columns.. Please advise.

Thanks in advance

roy · Post by **roy** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 5:09 am

Hi,
The shared container incoming or outgoing links must be defined twice.
once in the shared container itself and the second time in the job design that uses the shared container.
those links 2 for input must be defined with the same metadata and the 2 for output also must have te same metadata.
So if you want to use only some of the columns generated by the shared container or rename or chage their type, you should use a proper stage that will let you do it to those columns, as part of the specific job design that uses the shared container.
IHTH (I Hope This Helps),

suse_dk · Post by **suse_dk** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:32 am

If you enable RCP in the shared container you should be able to input metadata that does not exist within the SC metadata definitions

dsscholar · Post by **dsscholar** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:48 am

Hi all,

metadata can be same or be a superset.

input link to shared container ---> link1
starting link inside shared container ----> link2
end link inside shared container ------> link3
output link of shared container ------> link4

The link1 contains 20 columns along with the one column DUMMY which is used in link2. After doing some logic column EDW_LOAD_KEY is taken out from link3. link4 contains 20 columns from link1 and also the column EDW_LOAD_KEY from link3(total 21).

MAP TO CONTAINER LINK in input : link2 validation successful (link1 superset of link2)
MAP TO CONTAINER LINK in output : link3 validation not successful (i think everythin correct here. Please advise the wrong doing)

I have another job with some other columns but there the shared container validation is successful in both the links. But here its not successful. There also link4 contains more columns than link3. Please advise.

Thanks in advance

dsscholar · Post by **dsscholar** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:17 pm

Hi jwiles,chulett and ray,

Please advise if you have any clue.

Thanks in advance.

ray.wurlod · Post by **ray.wurlod** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:42 pm

select count(*) from all_users where clue > 0;
COUNT(*)
----------
0

Shared containers have a button that allows you to validate that the metadata is the same on the links that pass through its "walls". In your case that seems to be link1 with link2 and link3 with link4.

dsscholar · Post by **dsscholar** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:27 am

In link1 i have 20 columns,but the validation is successful. But why not for link4. i mapped link3 with link4. when i have same metadata the validation is successful, if i keep 20 columns from link1,its says link4's metadata is not superset or same of link3. Then why its successful for the input validation. Please advise..

Thanks.

dsscholar · Post by **dsscholar** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:49 am

Compilation error message :

Link meta data must be consistent in order to use Shared Container 'temp'
Link types must match.
Names of columns on the container stage link must be identical to, or a subset of, those on the mapped link.

I enabled RCP also.

INPUT : validation successful ( link1 has 20 columns and link2 has only one column)
OUTPUT : not successful ( got the above error)

dsscholar · Post by **dsscholar** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:04 am

I enabled RCP for shared container alone inside the job properties.. Its working fine..

Thanks

chulett · Post by **chulett** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 7:37 am

Nice quote, Ray.

dsscholar · Post by **dsscholar** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:49 am

chulett wrote:Nice quote, Ray.

Hi chulett,ray

Stop insulting others by giving quotes and encouraging it. I asked in the right sense and just because you are moderators,you should not write whatever you want. In many posts u guys do this only. If you consider some questions as silly, dont reply rather than doing this. After all, your questions will be silly to ralph kimball and bill inmon

chulett · Post by **chulett** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:32 pm

Dude, seriously? Where's the insult here? I just thought it was an amusing response to you specifically calling people out by name, something there's absolutely no reason to do. This is an all volunteer peer-to-peer forum where people read and respond to questions here when and if they can and if any of us had had anything to add to your topic (i.e. if we had "a clue") we would have. In time.

At no time are questions here considered "silly", though some answers can certainly fall into that category.