Page 1 of 1

Filter Stage usage for LIKE %ABC%

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:16 am
by Titto
hello,

Can the filter stage used to filter the data where LIKE %ABC% - same as we provide in SQL?

if not, what could be the alternative to use the LIKE condition to use %ABC%.

Any info helpful and appreciated.

Thanks

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:27 am
by DSguru2B
It supports 'Like' boolean operator. Did you try using it?
For your example, it will be Col like '%ABC%'

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:30 pm
by ray.wurlod
The Filter stage is a strange hybrid. With LIKE it expects regular expressions rather than SQL wildcards. Therefore what you need is

Code: Select all

LIKE '*ABC*'

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:35 pm
by DSguru2B
It works with sql wild cards as well right? Where is this information documented? I checked the Parallel developers guide, its not there. Unless its in a chapter other than Filter Stage.

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:43 pm
by ray.wurlod
Manuals from IBM training classes and Orchestrate Operators manual page 7-8.

The latter lists all the recognized regular expression characters and "%" is not among them.

IBM Center of Excellence claims that the Transformer stage is now faster than the Filter stage because the latter is interpreted; take this advice with skepticism until you test it.

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:54 pm
by DSguru2B
Thats strange. I built a job and after testing with '%' , I confirmed that it can be used. I dont have access to the manual so cannot test with other operators, but know for sure '%' works.

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:07 pm
by kumar_s
But If I recall properly, once I did testing on '*' in filter, which didn't gave your the expected output. I posted the result in this forum as well in some of the post. But I dont have access to test now.
But Iam sure that, its works with patter matching. Like [a-z][a-h]...

Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:33 am
by kumar_s
DSguru2B is right. '%' is working, contradictorily '*' is not working.

Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:55 am
by DSguru2B
kumar_s wrote:DSguru2B is right. '%' is working, contradictorily '*' is not working.
Thanks for the confirmations Kumar. And I thought my system had a bug :roll: