02-09-2012
2,
0
Join Date: Feb 2012
Last Activity: 10 February 2012, 5:57 AM EST
Posts: 2
Thanks Given: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
take it easy
hello AmbikaValagonda,
I'm from Syncsort, and saw your thread and the answer you got.
I'm not going to emphasize how good our product is bla bla bla.
Nevertheless, let me just add a few words.
Syncsort SORT is faster than the other sorts when volumes are BIG, i.e. when the source data don't fit into memory. Then, we fear no comparisons.
(and i don't speak about 10%, but 30% to 60%)
Be also aware that each version of Syncsort is faster than the previous ones. If you're using Syncsort 3.X, you may want to give a try to v7.1 before going further.
Syncsort has implemented new features like workspace compression which could accelerate your processes and save additional disk space.
And last, we now have a graphical interface which could reduce your dev and maintenance time, helping you to make more savings than by implementing and maintaining unix shell scripts.
Syncsort solves problems, especially performance problems when data volumes are BIG.
Of course, young geeks prefer scripting. Being able to handle pattern language makes them feel smart.
Best regards,
Steven