SORTLIB should be dead was Re: [OT] Obvious Is In The Mind Of The Beholder - JCL illustrIllustration

From: Clark F. Morris, Jr. (cfmtech_at_istar.ca)
Date: 12/16/04 

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:04:22 -0400

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> All righty... so there's some processing being done that requires some
> translation. What comes in is a file with an SSN and a job number... due
> to some whacky accounting requirements there is billing that is done under
> a 'pseudo-SSN' which is assigned to this combination. There's another
> file which contains all three of these elements; given that the number of
> records is moderate (about 70,000) the way to deal with this has been
> decided to be a VSAM (indexed) lookup-file, with real-SSN and job number,
> concatenated, as the key and the pseudo-SSN (which can be the same as the
> real) delivered as the result.
>
> Since this is 'this week's solution' I didn't put too much into it...
> USER02 supplies a flat file and I put together some JCL to make a VSAM out
> of it. Testing revealed a small problem... there were some records with
> the same real-SSN and job number but different pseudo-SSNs associated with
> them; the Corner-Office Guy said 'If we try to chase down why this was
> done we'll be here until next month... to hell with it, just grab one
> real-SSN/job number combination and use that, for now, we'll look at the
> problem of dupes When We Have Time.'
>
> So... I cobbled together a jobstream, nothing too pretty but it works...
> and it looks like this:
>
> //STEP000 EXEC PGM=IEFBR14
> //DD01 DD DISP=(MOD,DELETE),
> // UNIT=DISK,
> // DSN=USERID01.PSEUDSSN.FLAT
> //*---------------------------------------------------------------*
> //STEP010 EXEC PGM=ICEMAN
> //SORTLIB DD DSN=SYS1.SORTLIB,DISP=SHR

I thought the need for a SORTLIB had died in the 1970's. I know
SYNCSORT doesn't need one and I doubt that DF/SORT does. I think that I
was able to kill SYS1.SORTLIB in the late 1970's or early 1980's where I
used to work.

> //SYSOUT DD SYSOUT=*
> //SORTIN DD DISP=SHR,
> // DSN=USERID02.FLAT.SSN
> //SORTOUT DD DSN=USERID01.PSEUDSSN.FLAT,
> // DISP=(,CATLG,CATLG),
> // UNIT=FILE,
> // SPACE=(CYL,(10,5),RLSE),
> // DCB=(RECFM=FB,LRECL=26,BLKSIZE=0)
> //SYSIN DD *
> SORT FIELDS=(1,9,CH,A,86,8,CH,A,12,9,CH,A)
> OUTREC FIELDS=(01:01,9,10:86,8,18:12,9)
> END
> //*
> //STEP020 EXEC PGM=ICEMAN
> //SORTLIB DD DSN=SYS1.SORTLIB,DISP=SHR
> //SYSOUT DD SYSOUT=*
> //SORTIN DD DISP=SHR,
> // DSN=USERID01.PSEUDSSN.FLAT
> //SORTOUT DD DSN=USERID01.PSEUDSSN.FLAT,
> // DISP=SHR
> //SYSIN DD *
> SORT FIELDS=(1,17,CH,A)
> SUM FIELDS=(NONE)
> //*
> //STEP030 EXEC PGM=IDCAMS,COND=(0,NE)
> //SYSIN DD *
> DELETE (USERID01.VSAM.PSEUDSSN) SCRATCH
> IF MAXCC NE 0 -
> THEN SET MAXCC=0
> DEFINE CLUSTER (NAME (USERID01.VSAM.PSEUDSSN) -
> KEYS (17 0) -
> VOLUMES (FILE25) -
> CYLINDERS (5 5) -
> RECORDSIZE (26 26) -
> FREESPACE (15 20) -
> REUSE -
> SHAREOPTIONS (2 3))
> /*
> //*
> //STEP040 EXEC PGM=IDCAMS,COND=(0,NE)
> //INPUT1 DD DSN=USERID01.PSEUDSSN.FLAT,DISP=SHR
> //OUTPUT1 DD DSN=USERID01.VSAM.PSEUDSSN,DISP=SHR
> //SYSIN DD *
> REPRO INFILE(INPUT1) OUTFILE(OUTPUT1)
> /*
> //*
>
> ... and for those unfamiliar with the phenomenon... STEP000 deletes a
> previously-made flat file, STEP010 reads the input and grabs the real-SSN
> from position 1, the job number from position 86 and the pseudo-SSN from
> position 12 and writes all of these to another flat file, STEP020 goes
> through this newly-created file and removes the duplicates based on
> real-SSN and job number, STEP030 deletes the former VSAM file and defines
> a new one and STEP040 loads the de-duped flat file into the VSAM.
>
> Nothing special, nothing pretty... but it works... for 'this week's
> solution'.
>
> Anyhow... another programmer stopped by my cube and asked about my
> processing, seems like he'll be doing the reverse of what I'm doing and
> trying to look up a real-SSN based on a pseudo-SSN; I said that this was
> what I'd tossed together and he was welcome to it. Then... I felt kinda
> bad about dumping so ugly into his lap and sent him an email, apologising
> for the unattractiveness of what I'd given him and the lack of explanatory
> comments in it.
>
> His response was: 'No reason for apologies, it looked like a playboy
> centerfold compared to some of my stuff and it was pretty self
> explanatory.'
>
> 'Obvious' is in the mind of the beholder.
>
> DD
>