Concatenate a Resident Load Table to Itself?

[schneider2037]

Brand new to QV, and inherited a project. Trying to decipher the script yet, and have run across something I'm missing;

In the script editor, there are 20+ tabs with hundreds of lines of script. While I get most, ran into this one:

There is NO reference earlier in the script to create table "Boss_Units_TEMP", only here on a Resident load.

QUESTION: How/Why would I Concatenate into the same table a Resident Load is creating? Disregard the particulars of the fields please. Just trying to wrap my brain around the logic here.

Thanks all for any help/guidance. 28 days in to QV now...Jonathan

Concatenate(Boss_Units_TEMP)

Boss_Units_TEMP:

LOAD

KEY_StateDealer,

PLBT,

FQTR,

BOOKED_YEAR as FISCAL_YEAR,

BOOKED_YEAR &'-'& FQTR as FISCAL_KEY,

Sum(BOOKED_UNIT) as UNIT_BOOKED,

UNIT_FUEL_TYPE as FUEL_TYPE

Resident Boss

Group By KEY_StateDealer, UNIT_FUEL_TYPE, PLBT, FQTR, BOOKED_YEAR

;

DROP Table Boss;

[schneider2037]

Thanks Marcus - will definitely take your advice and do "Exit Script;" and step through from beginning to end. The script itself is horrifyingly complex (literally approaching 100 different types of Loads) so there's definitely something amiss here.

Thanks!
Jonathan

[marcus_sommer]

It sounds that there are too many load-statements as useful within a single application - probably a generator which creates multiple qvd's and/or does multiple transformations. Very useful and quite common is to split the loadings into extracting, transformations, datamodel and report parts and also those into logically groups. This keeps the loadings readable, maintainable and increased often the performance.

- Marcus

[schneider2037]

Marcus (and everyone) -

One nugget I forgot to mention is that this is the data model, not the application. The Application itself is a straight binary load over this data model qvw.

Apologies on not being very clear there.

Still doesn't lessen the complexity and horrific number of loads/resident loads, but at least this complexity is housed in the correct "layer."

~Jonathan