As of December 1, 2020, Focal Point is retired and repurposed as a reference repository. We value the wealth of knowledge that's been shared here over the years. You'll continue to have access to this treasure trove of knowledge, for search purposes only.
Join the TIBCO Community TIBCO Community is a collaborative space for users to share knowledge and support one another in making the best use of TIBCO products and services. There are several TIBCO WebFOCUS resources in the community.
From the Home page, select Predict: WebFOCUS to view articles, questions, and trending articles.
Select Products from the top navigation bar, scroll, and then select the TIBCO WebFOCUS product page to view product overview, articles, and discussions.
Request access to the private WebFOCUS User Group (login required) to network with fellow members.
Former myibi community members should have received an email on 8/3/22 to activate their user accounts to join the community. Check your Spam folder for the email. Please get in touch with us at community@tibco.com for further assistance. Reference the community FAQ to learn more about the community.
Prarie, i'm sure over half of those posts have been thanks for help i've received from you and everyone else, and applause for help i didn't even know i needed. This message has been edited. Last edited by: susannah,
In Focus since 1979///7706m/5 ;wintel 2008/64;OAM security; Oracle db, ///MRE/BID
Posts: 3811 | Location: Manhattan | Registered: October 28, 2003
My understanding is that, on the mainframe, EXTSORT will invoke SYNCSORT or whatever sort is installed. I'm not aware of any external sort package natively part of Windows?
Posts: 21 | Location: South Africa | Registered: April 22, 2005
Several approaches to try, depending on your data source and the ordering requirement for the result.
a. Look for a way to use TABLEF (rather than TABLE); then there is no FOCSORT involvement. If your source is a database server, "optimize" the request so that the server does the grouping.
b. If the table request can be converted from single-verb to multiple-verb, with a cascade of sorting phrases, the overall size of the internal matrix (really an on-the-fly hierarchical Focus file) may be considerably less than when a single verb is used, so it may beat the 2gb limit.
- Jack Gross WF through 8.1.05
Posts: 1925 | Location: NYC | In FOCUS since 1983 | Registered: January 11, 2005
For those of you without TechSupprt access, the main content (excluding EXTSORT) in the link I gave above is -
SET AUTOTABLEF = ON SET SAVEMATRIX = OFF
Using TABLEF as a default and avoiding the building of the internal matrix can considerably reduce the focsort requirements, as can reducing the number of BY phrases so that the internal 4 bytes required for each row for each BY field is reduced, thus reducing the total length of a single data row in the focsort.
e.g. If you have 12 BY phrases and you concatenate these fields into one and then sort by that, you could save 44 bytes per data row. If you have 1 million rows then that represents about 42 Mb(?).
If your data source is SQL then achieve all your collating and sorting of the output in your view or database definition so that you can just -
TABLEF FILE viewname (or SQLOUT) PRINT * ON TABLE HOLD AS whatever END
T
In FOCUS since 1986
WebFOCUS Server 8.2.01M, thru 8.2.07 on Windows Svr 2008 R2
WebFOCUS App Studio 8.2.06 standalone on Windows 10
Posts: 5694 | Location: United Kingdom | Registered: April 08, 2004
We've worked around this limit on solaris by "chunking" the data. It's a pain. Just enter "chunking" into the find box on this bulletin board to see what we went through. -James
WF 7.1.6 moving to WF 7.7, Solaris 10, HTML,PDF,XL
Posts: 83 | Location: Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center | Registered: April 17, 2003
Focal Point Forums 
