| Author |
Message
|
| catwood2 |
 Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:20 pm Post subject: Design Consideration: Filter vs RouteToLabel(2.1) |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 108
|
We have a requirement to send an acknowledgement message to a source application when the message flow has completed processing a transaction. The flow services messages from multiple source applications - some of which may not desire an Ack (a message element will flag the desire)
Currently, we are looking at:
first leg nodes (of which is a compute node that will set the flag for Ack)-> Flow Order (1) -> MQOutput
Flow Order (2) -> RouteToLabel ->Label (which create/writes ack IF necessary)
Question:
Does changing the Flow to look like the following add much:
all other nodes->Filter (check flag for Ack desired)True Terminal->
Flow Order(1) -> MQOutput ->
Flow Order(2) ->RouteToLabel ->Label (which create/writes ack)
all other nodes->Filter (check flag for Ack desired)False Terminal->
MQOutput
Seems "wasteful" to go path of RouteTolabel when there may not be any destination list info. But, does it really matter? I have been reading thru the cost of nodes and the various support pacs but am still coming to grips with processing costs. And I'm not sure if there is really any implication processing wise of sending the message to a RouteToLabel that will find no label.....this might come down to cost of Filter and RouteToLabel (which to date I have seen no breakdown and makes me think there is no difference).
thx |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
If you're making a single, boolean decision, you're better off performance wise (at least, the last time I looked) using a simple Filter node.
You start gaining by using RouteToLabel nodes when you start nesting more than about three Filter nodes.
As to sending a message to a RouteToLabel node that will find no label... this will throw an exception, which will cause your message flow to roll back.
So you probably don't want to do that.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| catwood2 |
| Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2004 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 108
|
| Ahh. Yeah, the exception would definitely be problematic. Appreciate the input. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| contactop |
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 50
|
| RouteLabel woul dbe good, rather than Filter node. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mq_developer |
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 82
|
I would recommend you to think on these lines .. .
Use a PROGAPATE with in your compute and build both kinda of messages ( Output / Acknowledgment) with in the same compute Node, along with it you can also build destination list for the output queues corresponding to each message - followed by a MQOutput with destination list property set .
This way you will eliminate Route to Label and would be more efficient i feel .. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kirani |
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 05 Sep 2001
Posts: 3779
Location: Torrance, CA, USA
|
I agree with what mq_developer had said.
_________________
Kiran
IBM Cert. Solution Designer & System Administrator - WBIMB V5
IBM Cert. Solutions Expert - WMQI
IBM Cert. Specialist - WMQI, MQSeries
IBM Cert. Developer - MQSeries
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| catwood2 |
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 108
|
| I will go read up on Propagate, thx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
