Not in or not between condition:

kumar444 · Post by **kumar444** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:33 pm

I have a requirement. I need to exclude the ranges and values like below in datastage.
4-10
25-30
80-300
00
null

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks

ray.wurlod · Post by **ray.wurlod** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:00 pm

Exclude them from what? What are you trying to accomplish?

Sreenivasulu · Post by **Sreenivasulu** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:39 am

Try Using the reject links in LOOKUP, MERGE stage

kumar444 · Post by **kumar444** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:16 pm

I have values coming as above in three different columns.
condition is something like
column 1 column 2 column 3.
4 26 85 ------------>reject
00 4 null -------------->reject
3 26 85 --------------->pass

If any of those values mentioned in the actual post satisfy the above condition i should reject them.

Note: There is an 'AND' condition between the three columns.

Thanks,

Vishal1982 · Post by **Vishal1982** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:06 am

Check the values directly in constraint part of the transformer.
Put the condition like

column1 < 4 and column1 > 10

and the same for other ranges to check and reject the records based on the values return.

Regards,
Vishal

udayk_2007 · Post by **udayk_2007** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:30 am

This can be also acheived using Filter Stage. Not sure if conditions on multiple columns can be placed in the single filter stage. If not supported,you need to use 3 filter stages.

Regards
Ulhas

mhester · Post by **mhester** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:19 am

The filter stage is probably not the best choice for this type of requirement. The "Filter" stage evaluates the expression at runtime for every input row. Because the Transform is compiled it will always be faster than a Filter stage.

Also, use of Filter stage should be limited to instances where the entire filter expression must be parameterized at runtime.

kumar444 · Post by **kumar444** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:01 am

Thanks for your inputs.
Sorry i have posted the actual requirement here in this link below.

viewtopic.php?t=140904

jwiles · Post by **jwiles** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:14 am

You're running two posts on the same topic and problem? That is frowned upon here.

kumar444 · Post by **kumar444** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:38 am

It was vague , so i had to repost.

chulett · Post by **chulett** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:00 am

No, it was vague so you had to re-clarify. And that should have happened here.

kumar444 · Post by **kumar444** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:09 pm

Sorry My fault. Will keep this in mind next time.