Author: Arun Raj
Subject: Re: Reply to: compare 2 records in seq. file & report differences
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:36 pm (GMT 5.5)
Bill,
Kolusu's dynamic sort as I understand, is to compare each byte of the record since the original 80-byte requirement stated so. So if the SYMNAMES have LRECL=200, it generates control statements to compare each byte from pos-1 to pos-200. However if anyone trying to use this to compare any datasets longer than 256 lrecl to do a byte-by-byte comparison is going to end up with ICE221A error.
Even though I am not so in favor of a SORT approach to handle this, rajatbagga has a point that the '9999 LRECL limit' does not really hold good for comparisons beyond 256.
_________________
Arun
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Love is like an hourglass, with the heart filling up as the brain empties. -Jules Renard
Subject: Re: Reply to: compare 2 records in seq. file & report differences
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:36 pm (GMT 5.5)
| Bill Woodger wrote: |
| The limit mentioned referred to the LRECL, not to the length of a comparison field which was changed eight-and-a-half years later and which couldn't have been predicted at the time. |
Kolusu's dynamic sort as I understand, is to compare each byte of the record since the original 80-byte requirement stated so. So if the SYMNAMES have LRECL=200, it generates control statements to compare each byte from pos-1 to pos-200. However if anyone trying to use this to compare any datasets longer than 256 lrecl to do a byte-by-byte comparison is going to end up with ICE221A error.
Even though I am not so in favor of a SORT approach to handle this, rajatbagga has a point that the '9999 LRECL limit' does not really hold good for comparisons beyond 256.
_________________
Arun
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Love is like an hourglass, with the heart filling up as the brain empties. -Jules Renard