User inserted sort does not fulfill the sort requirements

Post questions here relative to DataStage Enterprise/PX Edition for such areas as Parallel job design, Parallel datasets, BuildOps, Wrappers, etc.

Moderators: chulett, rschirm, roy

Post Reply
wuruima
Participant
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:15 pm

User inserted sort does not fulfill the sort requirements

Post by wuruima »

Aggregator_49: When checking operator: User inserted sort "Sort_300" does not fulfill the sort requirements of the downstream operator "APT_SortedGroup2Operator in Aggregator_49"

I encounter this warning..
in the job, i use a sort before Aggregator.

in the sort, i partition with 13 columns and do sort for these 13 columns.

in Aggregator, i use same as partition, and group the 13 columns to sum output.

i am not sure why shows this warning. does the Aggregator must have partition setting in the stage ?
wuruimao
wuruima
Participant
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Aggregator_49: When checking operator: User inserted sor

Post by wuruima »

my colleague told me i should not use Hash to partition in the Sort stage. i am going to try another partition type
wuruimao
wuruima
Participant
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Aggregator_49: When checking operator: User inserted sor

Post by wuruima »

i found this in the forum
manoj wrote:Before join stage use sort stage and try this..
I think it may hapen because of memory issue..
Inline sort handle less volume of data.
So is that possible because of too big volumn of data?

in the sort stage i need to sort 9 million data. and i set 1000 M in the sort stage.
wuruimao
jerome_rajan
Premium Member
Premium Member
Posts: 376
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 12:25 pm
Location: Piscataway

Post by jerome_rajan »

Did you check if the order of the keys in which you're sorting is the same as the order of your grouping keys in the aggregator?
Jerome
Data Integration Consultant at AWS
Connect With Me On LinkedIn

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.
ray.wurlod
Participant
Posts: 54607
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:52 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by ray.wurlod »

Try using an explicit Sort stage. You can allocate more memory to the sort.
IBM Software Services Group
Any contribution to this forum is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect any position that IBM may hold.
ArndW
Participant
Posts: 16318
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by ArndW »

This error is typical when your aggregation (or join) after the sort uses different keys than the sort. If you aggregate on 1 field then you need to sort on that 1 field (and not 2 or 3 keys).
Post Reply