On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 20:45:29 +0000, Sri h Kolusu wrote: > >As Steve smith pointed out it Is your EQUALS parm that is limiting the number >of records to be sorted. Do you really need EQUALS ( which is retain the >order of duplicates). ? If you don't need it then you can pass NOEQUALS as an >option > My guess about the (OCO?) implementation is that this restriction arises from a technique of appending a 32-bit fictitious key to each record on input and removing it on output.
Is 32 bits an optimum choice? A larger pseudo-key would have some impact on performance and reduce the maximum supported LRECL. And Tom Brennan's fiendish test case would still break it. Perhaps "max records" should be a PARM option -- 2**32 is a good compatible default. A few contributors have suggested SPLIT; SORT ...; MERGE. If EQUALS is (truly!?) needed, would that technique meet the need? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
