Missing function: memory copy

Hi,
Perhaps this should be posted to the feature request forum, but I really
like some discussion on the subject as well...
I'm making some compression and decompression algorithms, and am finding
that the C implementations are a factor 10 faster. I always claimed myself
that G code can be nearly as fast as C code, but in this case, I really
think it can't be as fast... I really don't want to use external routines,
since they are not platform independent.
The algorithms typically use a table that stores data. This data is then
copied to the output. That's a very simple description, in fact it's much
more complex.
In C, you can simply copy from one array to another, and this is just as
fast as any other copy. If you copy a number of values, it might even be
faster, since you get caching benefits and perhaps even mmx stuff kicking
in.
In G, there is no way to copy from one array to another, without first
making a new array. This really eats away processor time. So, why isn't
there a node that has one source array (in), one destination array (in/out),
an index (in) and length (in)? Or is there another solution to this in pure
G (I don't think so, but you never know)? This shouldn't be hard to make for
NI, but impossible for us, G programmers...
Regards,
Wiebe.

So, why isn't there a node that has one source array (in), one destination array (in/out), an index (in) and length (in)?
There is:
Message Edited by CoastalMaineBird on 03-23-2009 06:36 AM
Steve Bird
Culverson Software - Elegant software that is a pleasure to use.
Culverson.com
Blog for (mostly LabVIEW) programmers: Tips And Tricks
Attachments:
Picture 1.png ‏23 KB

Similar Messages

OWB bugs, missing functionality and the future of OWB

I'm working with OWB for some time now and there are a lot of rough edges to discover. Functionality and stability leave a lot to be desired. Here's a small and incomplete list of things that annoy me:
Some annoying OWB bugs (OWB 10g 10.1.0.2.0):
- The debugger doesn't display the output parameters of procedures called in pre-mapping processes (displays nothing, treats values as NULL). The mapping itself works fine though.
- When calling selfmade functions within an expression OWB precedes the function call with a constant "Functions." which prevents the function from being executed and results in an error message
- Occasionally OWB cannot open mappings and displays an error message (null pointer exception). In this case the mapping cannot be opened anymore.
- Occasionally when executing mappings OWB doesn't remember changes in mappings even when the changes were committed and deployed
- When using aggregators in mappings OWB scrambles the order of the output attributes
- The deployment of mappings sometimes doesn't work. After n retries it works without having changed anything in the mapping
- When recreating an external table directly after dropping the table OWB recreates the external table but always displays both an error message and a success message.
- In Key Lookups the screen always gets garbled when selecting an attribute as a join condition
- Usage of constants results in aborts in the debugger
- When you reconcile a table used in a key lookup the lookup condition sometimes changes. OWB seems to remember only the position of the lookup condition attribute but not the name.
- In the process of validating a mapping often changes in the mapping get lost and errors occur like 'Internal Errors' or 'Null Pointer Exceptions'.
- When you save the definition of external tables OWB always adds 2 whitespace columns to the beginning of all the lines following 'ORGANISATION EXTERNAL'. If you save a lot of external table definitions you get files with hundreds of leading whitespaces.
Poor or missing functionality:
- No logging on the level of single records possible. I'd like the possibility to see the status of each single record in each operator like using 'verbose data' in PowerCenter
- The order of the attributes cannot be changed. This really pisses me off expecially if operators like the aggregator scramble the order of attributes.
- No variables in expressions possible
- Almost unusable lookup functionality (no cascading lookups, no lookup overrides, no unconnected lookups, only equal condition in key lookups)
- No SQL overrides in soruces possible
- No mapplets, shared containers or any kind a reusable transformations
- No overview functionality for mappings. Often it's very hard to find a leftover operator in a big mapping.
- No copy function for attributes
- Printing functionality is completely useless
- No documentation functionality for mappings (reports)
- Debugger itself needs debugging
- It's very difficult to mark connections between attributes of different operations. It's almost impossible to mark a group of connections without marking connections you don't want to mark.
I really wonder which of the above bugs and mssing functionality 'Paris' will address. From what I read about 'Paris' not many if at all. If Oracle really wants to be a competitor (with regard to functionality) to Informatica, IBM/Ascential etc. they have a whole lot of work to do or purchase Informatica or another of the leading etl tool
vendors.
What do you think about OWB? Will it be a competitor for the leading etl tools or just a cheap database add on and become widely used like SAB BW not for reasons of technology or functionality but because it's cheap?
Looking forward to your opinions.
Jörg Menker

Thanks to you two for entertaining my thoughts so far. Let me respond to you latest comments.
Okay, lets not argue which one is better.. when a tool is there .. then there are some reasons to be there...But the points raised by Jorg and me are really very annoying. Overall I agree with both yours and Jorg's points (and I did not think it was an argument...merely sharing our observations with each other (;^)
The OWB tool is not as mature as Informatica. However, Informatica has no foothold in the database engine itself and as I mentioned earlier, is still "on the outside looking in..." The efficiency and power of set-based activity versus row-based activity is substantial.
Looking at it from another way lets take a look at Microstrategy as a way of observing a technical strategy for product development. Microstrategy focused on the internals (the engine) and developed it into the "heavy-lifting" tool in the industry. It did this primarily by leveraging the power of the backend...the database and the hosting server. For sheer brute force, it was champion of the day. It was less concerned with the pretty presentation and more concerned with getting the data out of the back-end so the user didn't have to sit there for a day and wait. Now they have begun to focus on the presentation part.
Likewise this seems to be the strategy that Oracle has used for OWB. It is designed around the database engine and leverages the power of the database to do its work. Informatica (probably because it needs to be all things to all people) has tended to view the technical offerings of the database engine as a secondary consideration in its architectural approach and has probably been forced to do so more now that Oracle has put themselves in direct competition with Informatica. To do otherwise would make their product too complex to maintain and more vendor-specific.
I am into the third data warehousing/data migration project and my previous two have been on Informatica (3 years on it).I respect your experience and your opinions...you are not a first timer. The tasks we have both had to solve and how we solved them with these tools are not necessarily the same. Could be similar in instances; could be quite different.
So the general tendency is to evaluate the tool and try to see how things that were needed to be done in my previous projects can be done with this tool. I am afraid to say .. I am still not sure how these can be implemented in OWB. The points raised by us are probably the fall out of this deficiency.One observation that I would make is that in my experience, calls to the procedural language in the database engine have tended to perform very poorly with Informatica. Informatica's scripting language is week. Therefore, if you do not have direct usability of a good, strong procedural language to tackle some complicated tasks, then you will be in a pickle when the solution is not well suited to a relational-based approach. Informatica wants you to do most things outside of the database (in the map primarily). It is how you implement the transformation logic. OWB is built entirely around the relational, procedural, and ETL components in the Oracle database engine. That is what the tool is all about.
If cost is the major factor for deciding a tool then OWB stands far ahead...Depends entirely on the client and the situation. I have implemented solutions for large companies and small companies. I don't use a table saw to cut cake and I don't use a pin knife to fall trees. Right tool for the right job.
...thats what most managers do .. without even looking how in turn by selecting such a tool they make the life tough for the developers.Been there many times. Few non-technical managers understand the process of tool evaluation and selection and the value a good process adds to the project. Nor do they understand the implications of making a bad choice (cost, productivity, maintainability).
The functionality of OWB stands way below Informatica.If you are primarily a GUI-based implementer that is true. However, I have often found that when I have been brought in to fix performance problems with Informatica implementations that the primary problem is usually with the way that the developer implemented it. Too often I have found that the developer understands how to implement logic in the GUI component (the Designer/Maps and Sessions) with a complete lack of understanding of how all this activity will impact load performance (they don't understand how the database engine works.) For example, a strong feature in Informatica is the ability to override the default SQL statement generated by Informatica. This was a smart design decision on Informatica's part. I have frequently had to go into the "code" and fix bad joins, split up complex operations, and rip out convoluted logic to get the maps to perform within a reasonable load window. Too often these developers are only viewing the problem through the "window" of the tool. They are not stepping back and look at the problem in the context of the overall architecture. In part Informatica forces them to do this. Another possible factor is they probably don't know better.
"One tool...one solution"
Microstrategy until recently had been suffering from that same condition of not allowing the developer to create the actual query). OWB engineers need to rethink their strategy on overriding the SQL.
The functionality of OWB stands way below Informatica.In some ways yes. If you do a head-to-head comparison of the GUI then yes. In other ways OWB is better (Informatica does not measure up when you compare it with all of the architectural features that the Oracle database engine offers). They need to fix the bugs and annoyances though.
.. but even the GUI of Informatica is better than OWB and gives the developer some satisfaction of working in it.Believe me I feel your pain. On the other hand, I have suffered from Informatica bugs. Ever do a port from one database eingine to another just to have it convert everything into multi-byte? Ever have it re-define your maps to parallel processing threads when you didn't ask it to?
Looking at the technical side of things I can give you one fine example ... there is no function in Oracle doing to_integer (to_number is there) but Informatica does that ... Hmm-m-m...sorry, I don't get the point.
The style of ETL approach of Informatica is far more appealing.I find it unnecessarily over-engineered.
OWB has two advantages : It is basically free of cost and it has a big brother in Oracle.
It is basically free of cost...When you are another "Microsoft", you can throw your weight around. The message for Informatica is "don't bite the hand that feeds you." Bad decisions at the top.
Regards,
Dan Phillips

Use of Adjust function to copy standard config for Upgraded system

I have worked on a number of different ERP 6 systems that have been upgraded from previous versions.
Some of the basic standard delivered config will be missing and there is a simple task of using the "adjust" function to copy the standard config from client "001" to the developement client "XXX"
However I know have a client who has the missing config in the dev client "XXX" but when you use the adjust back to "001" there is nothing there.
Do you know a way to re-create the core config?
An example is in Dispute Management - if you go to the case type config. SAP delivers F_DM as a base - but there is nothing there.
thanks

Try to copy from client "000"

The System.arraycopy Functionality and copying array question

When created arrays such as String[] myStringArray (for example), is it general good practice to use the System.arraycopy function to copy the array?
Why isn't it good practice to use equal instead? Would this work just as well?
String[] myStringArray = new String[] { "My", " Test"};
String[] myStringArrayCopy = new String[myStringArray.length};
myStringArrayCopy = myStringArrayCopy;Or is that just going to make them the same element in memory and if I change myStringArray in antoher part of the program that means myStringArrayCopy will change as well since it is the same thing?

Youre right, the equals sign just assigns the new array same reference in memory as the old array so they are pointing to the same data.
Im 90% sure of that.
If you want to work with an array without changing the original array id suggest using the System.arraycopy method. If you dont mind the contents changing then use the = sign..(but then why use a new array at all?)
Hope this helps, if not theres loads of more experienced people on the boards...
Ocelot

Missing Functionality: Dunning Wizard - We need table CRD1

Hello,
Missing Functionality: Dunning Wizard - We need table CRD1 in the dunning PLD templates!!!
This Workaround is impossible.
As a workaround I suggest to store this information in the UDFs that you would create on the OCRD table that is exposed in the dunning PLD templates.

keine Antwort ist auch eine Antwort

MISSING FUNCTIONALITY-The field "VatIdUnCmp" is not exposed in DI API & DTW

The field "VatIdUnCmp" (Unified Federal Tax ID) is not exposed by the
DI API and therefore not available in DTW.
This is a missing functionality.
In order to have this non-legal requirement, as request in the note 1028874, I send this development request
Thanks for your cooperation.
Fabio Fambrini

Maybe check here:
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/c5f5dbcc-0a01-0010-5d82-f25f2bee715e
HTH,
Frank

Packaging data is not saved in document draft (missing functionality)

Dear all,
Packaging data, usually typed with delivery note, is not saved together with Delivery Note draft (No matter the draft is saved manually or automatically by approval procedure).
I have tested on SBO 2005B latest patch, 2007B latest patch, and 8.8 version, they all do not save packaging data in draft.
The draft related tables for packaging (DRF7, DRF8) are already existed in SBO, I encourage to get this missing functionality back.
My customers are highly needed for this function for better operation flow.
It would be appreciated if this request could be implemented in the near future patch.
Thanks in advance

Have also just discovered that this functionality is missing, although we were going to be using it when saving an AR Invoice as Draft. This is a major hole and is going to cause a big issue for a current implementation where this method was going to be used to create 'Split Deliveries' without making the account postings and allow Despatch paperwork for the Shipping company to be printed. The solution was going to be extremely simple, but now potentially is going to result in a substantial SDK development.
It would be useful to know whether there is any likelihood that it will be resolved in the near future, i.e. in a patch for 2007A SP1 or 8.8.

Mail for Exchange Missing Functions E71 v E72

Hi All,
So I have been using an E71 with Mail for Exhcange for some time now and find it is very good.
However
I have an E72 with Mail for Exhcange already installed on the device BUT it clearly has missing functions whihc I had on the previous version on Mail fo Exchangeo n the E71.
These are
Comp Directory - Very useful for looking up contacts details from the GAB
View Log in Mail for Exchange. This is useful to see what the error is for a reason why the device may not be syncing with the MS Exchange Server.
Full resync in mail for Exchange. This again useful for support as other users will tell you that if the two systems have got their wires twisted, a full resync can fix the problem!
What version of the software do I have? Helps for future support and upgrades.
So Mr Nokia Software Developer. When can we have these functions added? Do we have to drop this software tool and device....
MODERATOR'S NOTE:
We have edited your post. Please be advised that feedback on Nokia devices are accepted in the forum provided that they are written in an acceptable manner such as tone and the choice of words.

As far as the version number goes - it's not a misprint, it's just they way Nokia numbering scheme works. build 2.09 is version 2.9. Similarly in Nokia Maps build 3.04 is called version 3.4... go figure.
Lumia 920, Lumia 800
Nokia N8-00 (NAM, Product Code: 059C8T6), Symbian Belle, Type RM-596, 111.030.0609
Nokia 5800 XpressMusic (NAM, Product Code: 0577454) Software v51.2.007, Type RM-428

Missing Function Modules - EWA_MAIN_BUSINESS_HOURS & READ_STAMP

Hi Gurus,
When i am generating EWA for system in Solution Manager, i am getting the error
under Service Preparation
- Missing Function Modules
1. EWA_MAIN_BUSINESS_HOURS
2. READ_STAMP
*In the satellite system,tcode-sdccn*
Below are the errors:
1) EWA_MAIN_BUSINESS_HOURS : no matching interface found
function module not found
EWA_MAIN_BUSINESS_HOURS : funcname /SDF/MAIN_BUSINESS_HOURS , module 000156
2) READ_RFC_LIST : # of imp params in funcmod < # of imp params in mod 000152
READ_RFC_LIST : inconsistency in # of imp params found for mod 000152
READ_RFC_LIST : non-default imp param IF_ANONYMIZE is not passed to mod 000152
READ_STAMP : no matching interface found
function module not found
READ_STAMP : funcname /BDL/READ_STAMP , module 000153
Can Anybody help me to resolve this issue.
Regards,
Ashok

The modules EWA_MAIN_BUSINESS_HOURS, READ_STAMP and READ_RFC_LIST are supplied with the next version of ST-PI, which is currently scheduled to be released for customers on December 15. I can only ask you to ignore the error until after the next version of ST-PI has been installed on the system.
Please be informed that the errors are not critical and will disappear
by installing the latest ST-PI which will be release around december the
15th 2008.
Edited by: Felipe Pitta on Dec 2, 2008 12:22 PM

Planning function to copy version A of year 2007 to Version B of 2008 - IP

I have a copy planning function which has a variable on from version and to version and it works fine.I can copy.So version to version for the same year works fine.
           Another requirement is to copy Version A of year 2007 to version B of year 2008.For this in the planning function I made version,year and calyearmonth all 3 as changeable and have variables on from version from year and to version and to year.I don't have a variable on calyearmonth.
          I run the query for version B and year 2008 and CALYEARMONTH 1/2008-12/2008 and it returns empty results as there is no data for version B for year 2008.then I execute the planning function to copy data from version A and year 2007 to version B and year 2008.I am getting the following error "CalyearMonth is not included in selection".I ran the query for 1/2008 - 12/2008.I didn't understand this.
        In the planning function filter I don't have any filter for calyear and calyear month.But it is there in the query.
Thanks

Hi Siva,
Since you do not have the calmonth as the change characteristic in your plannning function.The values would be copied to year 2008 with month as #.
So there would be no values for months of 2008 and hence you are getting that error.
You need to copy the month figures also for data to be seen in the report.
Assign points if useful.
Ajay

Camera Raw 6.6 missing functions

I use PSE 10 with Camera Raw 6.6. It appears to be missing functions such as the paint brush and the ability to mask. I've tried downloading it again, but the additional functions did not reappear. Any suggestions?

Masking is only available in conjunction with sharpening under the detail tab. Hold down the alt key whist dragging the making slider to see how sharpening will be applied to edges.
There is no adjustment brush tool available in the Elements version of camera raw. It’s only available in CS6 or Lightroom.

Missing function detour to the mode Drive/Walk for...

Hello
Nokia maps and Nokia Drive+ Beta for Lumia, missing function detour to the mode Drive/Walk. This feature allows you to calculate an alternative route.
Nokia Lumia 820
Rm 825
Firmware version : 8.0.10211.0
Product code : eu_europe_2_252
Imei : 354105053176656
Operator : Swisscom

So you have the files in two places now right???
Easy right click the top level Folders in the Library, select Update Folder Location and navigate to the Folder on the new drive. You will lose nothing. If you have reimported for some reason you will need to go back to an earlier back up catalog and use that to do what I have stated earlier.

8.8 Limited Financial User - missing functionality .... COPY TO

Similar to the referenced issue below, a limited financial user cannot use the 'copy to' feature from a AP Purchase Order to an AP Invoice; it is simply grayed out. We are on version 8.8 (8.80.230) SP:00 PL:12.
Unfortunately, there are no 'price list' authorization issues, as suggested by this question and answer:
[Copy To issue with 8.8]
I hope someone can help; thank you,
Russell Clayton
Sweet Leaf Tea Co

Dear Veronique,
We are also facing the same problem even after using the 'Copy From' functionality. But ita seems work for the intial stage for some 10 days, soon after not able to create A/P Invoice based on 'GRPO'.
Any valid comments are valuable even to us.
Regards,
Bala

Missing Functionality: Copy from orders and pick and pack functions

When I create a delivery note from the Sales A/R Delivery menu using the "Copy from" function and select two or more orders having different payment methods, system show me one delivery notes and alerts me that orders have two different payment terms.
If i do the same in the Pick and Pack selecting lines from different orders, system show me one delivery notes without alerts me that orders have two different payment terms.
This behavior is contradictory. The system should have same behaviour in the "Copy from" functionality and in Pick and Pack.

When I create a delivery note from the Sales A/R Delivery menu using the "Copy from" function and select two or more orders having different payment methods, system show me one delivery notes and alerts me that orders have two different payment terms.
If i do the same in the Pick and Pack selecting lines from different orders, system show me one delivery notes without alerts me that orders have two different payment terms.
This behavior is contradictory. The system should have same behaviour in the "Copy from" functionality and in Pick and Pack.

Missing functionality.Draw document wizard - delete/add rows and copy/paste

Scenario:
My customer is using 2007 SP0 PL47 and would like the ability to change the sequence of the rows of the draw document wizard and delete/add multiple rows (i.e. when you create an AR Invoice copied from several deliveries).
This customer requires the sequence of items on the AR invoice to be consistent with the sequence on the original sales order including text lines and subtotals. Currently we cannot achieve this when there are multiple deliveries.
Steps to reproduce scenario:
1.Create a Sales order with several items and use text lines, regular and subtotals.
2.Create more than one delivery based on the sales order and deliver in a different sequence than appears on the sales order.
3.Open an AR Invoice and u2018Copy fromu2019 > Deliveries. Choose multiple deliveries. Choose u2018Customizeu2019.
4.Look at the sequence of items on the Invoice. How can the items and subtotals and headings be moved around so they appear in the same sequence as on the sales order?
Current Behaviour:
In SAP B1 itu2019s not possible to delete or add more than one row at a time on the AR Invoice or Draw Document Wizard.
Itu2019s not possible to copy/paste a row on the AR Invoice or Draw Document Wizard.
Itu2019s not possible to change the sequence of the rows using the Draw Document Wizard.
Business Impact: This customer is currently spending a lot of time trying to organize the AR invoice into a presentable format. They have to go through the invoice and delete the inapplicable rows one by one (because SAP B1 does not have the ability to delete multiple lines at a time) and also has to manually delete re-add rows to make it follow the same sequence as the sales order.
Proposals:
Enable users to delete or add more than one row at a time on the AR Invoice or Draw Document Wizard.
Enable users to copy/paste rows on the AR Invoice or Draw Document Wizard.

Hi Rahul,
You said 'It is not at all concerned with Exchange rate during GRPO...' If that is the case how does the Use Row Exchange Rate from Base Document in the draw document wizard work? Does this mean 1 GRPO : 1 AP Invoice so I can use the base document rate?
How should I go about with transactions like these? That is adding an AP Invoice from multiple GRPO's having different exchange rates. What I am trying to capture here is that in the AP Invoice, base document rates should be used in the row item level and not the current rate when adding the invoice.
Thanks,
Michelle

Missing function: memory copy

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for