I've inherited a legacy job and am having a tough time deciding why it was built the way it was. I'm hoping that the community can shed some light on what I'm thinking.
Job design:
SRC --> Transformer --> IPC-part --> IPC-collect --> flat file
* note, that there is _nothing_ between the partitioner and collector.
My thoughts, the use of IPC-partition and IPC-collector is unnecessary. Can anyone think of any benefit for doing this?
Inheriting a job: IPC Partition fed direct to IPC Collector
Moderators: chulett, rschirm, roy
On a multiprocessor system, it makes sense, if the design is like this
Use of LinkPartitionar and LinkCollector is not totally ruled out unless you are on a single processor system which I highly doubt. It helps when you are dealing with large amounts of data. But the order of placing them is different IMO.
HTH
Code: Select all
SRC---->>LinkPartitioner---->XFM1----->LinkCollector--->>FlatFile
| ^
| |
----------->>XFM2--------
HTH
Kris
Where's the "Any" key?-Homer Simpson
Where's the "Any" key?-Homer Simpson
With Inter-processing checked on the job properties, the Transformer stage will essentially achieve the same effect. Remove the IPC stages and scratch your head one last time. Folks do strange things.
Kenneth Bland
Rank: Sempai
Belt: First degree black
Fight name: Captain Hook
Signature knockout: right upper cut followed by left hook
Signature submission: Crucifix combined with leg triangle
Rank: Sempai
Belt: First degree black
Fight name: Captain Hook
Signature knockout: right upper cut followed by left hook
Signature submission: Crucifix combined with leg triangle
Re: Inheriting a job: IPC Partition fed direct to IPC Collec
The LC and LP might have been placed consequently so as to improve the performance of the job. Or might be for renaming some columns.
Why don't u remove these componenets and compare the performance with the original one.
I think for cases like this Trial and Error is teh best solution.
Regards,
Pranay
Why don't u remove these componenets and compare the performance with the original one.
I think for cases like this Trial and Error is teh best solution.
Regards,
Pranay
zbethem wrote:I've inherited a legacy job and am having a tough time deciding why it was built the way it was. I'm hoping that the community can shed some light on what I'm thinking.
Job design:
SRC --> Transformer --> IPC-part --> IPC-collect --> flat file
* note, that there is _nothing_ between the partitioner and collector.
My thoughts, the use of IPC-partition and IPC-collector is unnecessary. Can anyone think of any benefit for doing this?
Pranay
Seatte, WA
Seatte, WA