Question for OVRDBF with SEQONLY parameter

Hi,

In one of our CL program in OVRDBF command we have specified SEQONLY to *YES. Now this jobs runs sice months with no problem...What happened today is when it ran it took 45 min against 1 min (which it takes everyday). When I saw the job log with 22,000 pages I have got msg that SEQONLY(*YES) changes to SEQONLY(*NO) because the below as per job log.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Member ABC file ABC in library LIB1 was      
opened with the SEQONLY(*YES) parameter specified in the program or on the  
Override Database File (OVRDBF) command. However, the parameter has been    
changed to SEQONLY(*NO) because of condition 1 shown below: 1 - The program  
opened member ABC for output operations only and SEQONLY(*YES) was      
specified with the default number of records.  SEQONLY(*YES) was changed to  
SEQONLY(*NO) to allow the program to handle duplicate key, conversion        
mapping, key mapping, and select or omit errors, or both select and omit    
errors at the time of the output operation.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Does anybody knows why it has been changed from *YES to *NO ?

Regards
Prashant Patel
inform_prashantAsked:
Who is Participating?

[Product update] Infrastructure Analysis Tool is now available with Business Accounts.Learn More

x
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

arnyt2002Commented:
From the looks of the joblog I would hazard a guess that you have a duplicate key in the file (two or more records with the same key).  The particular member that you are running the OVRDBF must allow for duplicate keys.
I take it the program must read the data and looks for changes in the key information.  Hence, with the SEQONLY(*NO) you will get the large output.
If you need any further help let me know.
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
tliottaCommented:
Prashant:

No recent responses, so I'm curious if this went away. One item you left out was the message identifier, but it seems odd that you got 22,000 _pages_ of the message. Was the job actually attempting to open a file so many times that 22,000 pages of errors appeared? Why couldn't the file be handled through a shared open?

Tom
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Operating Systems

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.