Can't start transactional replication SQL 2005. System.OutOfMemory Exception during start

We currently use log shipping to 2 other servers for reporting. We
want to use transactional replication instead, so that our reporting
databases are always available (when the restore agent runs the
database is unavailable for a few seconds) and to reduce the latency
between changes in the main database appearing in our reporting
database.
I've successfully got replication to work on a test scenario (with
only a few thousand rows) but when I try and get transactional
replication going on our production site I get a System.OutOfMemory
exception when performing the snapshot. It fails at about 40 percent
of one of our larger tables (157 million rows.) The database backup
is about 27GB.
The hardware has 4GB memory, 2 dual core x86 running 32bit Windows
Server 2003.
We are running SQL2005 Standard edtion SP2, but I had the same problem
on SP1.
I've tried the /3GB switch.
I've tried putting the distrubutor on the main server, and on a
seperate server, and on the reporting box.
I've tried pull and push subscriptions.
I'm going to try a row filter to pull only the most recent data (to
drop the number of rows) and see at what point it fails, but this is a
fairly long interative process. And we do need all the data in the
end.
I'm looking for advice, has anybody else had similar problems?
Is there a way to start replication from a restored database?
I'm considering installing more Memory - but am unsure how to estimate
how much more memory we need. Also our machines run fine with 4GB of
memory normally; I can't really afford to buy more memory just to
"start" the replication process going (but of course I guess this
depends on how much more I would need!)
Daniel Bryars
This is something that I would really like to have a closer look so let me
ask you a few questions:
1) Is snapshot.exe consuming a large amount of memory according to taskmgr?
2) Do you have a pagefile configured on the distributor machine? I have
heard of one case where disabling the pagefile seemed to be the cause of OOM
error in the snapshot agent. I suspect that this may have something to do
with the use of memory mapped file in the underlying BCP api but I was never
able to prove one way or another.
3) Do you have a large amount of blob column data?
If possible, you may also want to consider upgrading your software stack at
your distributor (OS + SQL Server) to 64bit as it is quite possible that you
are running out of address space range. Most dual-core processors should
already be capable of running in 64bit mode.
-Raymond
<bryars@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174821642.773195.15500@.e65g2000hsc.googlegro ups.com...
> We currently use log shipping to 2 other servers for reporting. We
> want to use transactional replication instead, so that our reporting
> databases are always available (when the restore agent runs the
> database is unavailable for a few seconds) and to reduce the latency
> between changes in the main database appearing in our reporting
> database.
> I've successfully got replication to work on a test scenario (with
> only a few thousand rows) but when I try and get transactional
> replication going on our production site I get a System.OutOfMemory
> exception when performing the snapshot. It fails at about 40 percent
> of one of our larger tables (157 million rows.) The database backup
> is about 27GB.
> The hardware has 4GB memory, 2 dual core x86 running 32bit Windows
> Server 2003.
> We are running SQL2005 Standard edtion SP2, but I had the same problem
> on SP1.
> I've tried the /3GB switch.
> I've tried putting the distrubutor on the main server, and on a
> seperate server, and on the reporting box.
> I've tried pull and push subscriptions.
> I'm going to try a row filter to pull only the most recent data (to
> drop the number of rows) and see at what point it fails, but this is a
> fairly long interative process. And we do need all the data in the
> end.
> I'm looking for advice, has anybody else had similar problems?
> Is there a way to start replication from a restored database?
> I'm considering installing more Memory - but am unsure how to estimate
> how much more memory we need. Also our machines run fine with 4GB of
> memory normally; I can't really afford to buy more memory just to
> "start" the replication process going (but of course I guess this
> depends on how much more I would need!)
> Daniel Bryars
>

Can't Send mail using MultiServer Admin

Hi,

I have a Master server which I want to use to handle jobs for our Production Servers. the master server has Outlook installed but the Target servers do not. I need to find a way to get the job to send a mail confirming whether the job has succeeded or failed but without having a mail client installed on any of the target servers. Currently the actual backups do run but the send mail section fails with the following error.

xp_sendmail: Procedure expects parameter @.user, which was not supplied. [SQLSTATE 42000] (Error 17985). The step failed.

I can't see any parameter @.User on BOL, it may be that using sendmail is not the best way foward here

Any ideas anyone?

Hi, I had this problem when I migrated my server to new hardware. I had not yet set up the Outlook account which SQL Server uses to send the mail on the new hardware. You have to login to your box with the same account that you use for the SQL Server startup service and create an outlook profile on that account before you can send the mail using xp_sendmail. Hope this helps!|||

Hi Jason,

Thanks for the response, we don't want to install an Outlook client on the target servers which was cauing the problem, I managed to resolve the issue by using smtp instead

Regards

Lisa

|||

how do you set up the smtp on your target server? I'd like to do the same but have not any idea, I am a newbie in both SQL and network. Thanks.

|||Try using http://www.sqldev.net/xp/sp_smtp_sendmail.htm

Can't Send mail using MultiServer Admin

Hi,

I have a Master server which I want to use to handle jobs for our Production Servers. the master server has Outlook installed but the Target servers do not. I need to find a way to get the job to send a mail confirming whether the job has succeeded or failed but without having a mail client installed on any of the target servers. Currently the actual backups do run but the send mail section fails with the following error.

xp_sendmail: Procedure expects parameter @.user, which was not supplied. [SQLSTATE 42000] (Error 17985). The step failed.

I can't see any parameter @.User on BOL, it may be that using sendmail is not the best way foward here

Any ideas anyone?

Hi, I had this problem when I migrated my server to new hardware. I had not yet set up the Outlook account which SQL Server uses to send the mail on the new hardware. You have to login to your box with the same account that you use for the SQL Server startup service and create an outlook profile on that account before you can send the mail using xp_sendmail. Hope this helps!|||

Hi Jason,

Thanks for the response, we don't want to install an Outlook client on the target servers which was cauing the problem, I managed to resolve the issue by using smtp instead

Regards

Lisa

|||

how do you set up the smtp on your target server? I'd like to do the same but have not any idea, I am a newbie in both SQL and network. Thanks.

|||Try using http://www.sqldev.net/xp/sp_smtp_sendmail.htm

Can't Send mail using MultiServer Admin

Hi,

I have a Master server which I want to use to handle jobs for our Production Servers. the master server has Outlook installed but the Target servers do not. I need to find a way to get the job to send a mail confirming whether the job has succeeded or failed but without having a mail client installed on any of the target servers. Currently the actual backups do run but the send mail section fails with the following error.

xp_sendmail: Procedure expects parameter @.user, which was not supplied. [SQLSTATE 42000] (Error 17985). The step failed.

I can't see any parameter @.User on BOL, it may be that using sendmail is not the best way foward here

Any ideas anyone?

Hi, I had this problem when I migrated my server to new hardware. I had not yet set up the Outlook account which SQL Server uses to send the mail on the new hardware. You have to login to your box with the same account that you use for the SQL Server startup service and create an outlook profile on that account before you can send the mail using xp_sendmail. Hope this helps!|||

Hi Jason,

Thanks for the response, we don't want to install an Outlook client on the target servers which was cauing the problem, I managed to resolve the issue by using smtp instead

Regards

Lisa

|||

how do you set up the smtp on your target server? I'd like to do the same but have not any idea, I am a newbie in both SQL and network. Thanks.

|||Try using http://www.sqldev.net/xp/sp_smtp_sendmail.htm

Can't see Mapped Drives in Database Maintenance tool!

I have SQL2000 & SQL2005 running on Windows 2003 servers.
I am using the Database Maintenance tool to backup selected databases. I
realized the only drives I can save these backups to are the local drives. We
don't have enough space on these local drives, so is there anyway to see the
network mapped drives for this procedure?
Thanks,
Ted
Don't use a mapped drive. Use the UNC pathing instead. You need to ensure
the account SQL Server is running under has permissions to read and write to
this share first.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555128
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Infomax" <Infomax@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EBB765BE-0A41-456C-9615-C6AB069AAADB@.microsoft.com...
>I have SQL2000 & SQL2005 running on Windows 2003 servers.
> I am using the Database Maintenance tool to backup selected databases. I
> realized the only drives I can save these backups to are the local drives.
> We
> don't have enough space on these local drives, so is there anyway to see
> the
> network mapped drives for this procedure?
> Thanks,
> Ted

Can''t see 64-bit FTS performance counters from 32-bit application

I have a 32-bit application which sometimes runs against 64-bit servers. When it does, I can't read the performance counters published by the FTS service because they're 64-bit only. I get event #1022 from PerfLib in the event log:

Windows cannot open the 64-bit extensible counter DLL msftesqlFD in a 32-bit environment. Contact the file vendor to obtain a 32-bit version. Alternatively if you are running a 64-bit native environment, you can open the 64-bit extensible counter DLL by using the 64-bit version of Performance Monitor. To use this tool, open the Windows folder, open the System32 folder, and then start Perfmon.exe.

Does Microsoft make available 32-bit counter libraries for 32-bit clients of the 64-bit FTS? How do I obtain those bits?

.B ekiM
Are 32-bit applications not supported by 64-bit servers?

Can''t see 64-bit FTS performance counters from 32-bit application

I have a 32-bit application which sometimes runs against 64-bit servers. When it does, I can't read the performance counters published by the FTS service because they're 64-bit only. I get event #1022 from PerfLib in the event log:

Windows cannot open the 64-bit extensible counter DLL msftesqlFD in a 32-bit environment. Contact the file vendor to obtain a 32-bit version. Alternatively if you are running a 64-bit native environment, you can open the 64-bit extensible counter DLL by using the 64-bit version of Performance Monitor. To use this tool, open the Windows folder, open the System32 folder, and then start Perfmon.exe.

Does Microsoft make available 32-bit counter libraries for 32-bit clients of the 64-bit FTS? How do I obtain those bits?

.B ekiM
Are 32-bit applications not supported by 64-bit servers?

Can't save Server names in "Object Explorer"

In Management Studio, under Registered Servers, I double-click a server name (could be sql 2000 or sql 2005 server) and it apperars in "Object Explorer" where I can work with it. I click the "Save All" button in Management Studio, exit Studio, and re-start Studio. When I do, I find that all the servers I placed under "Object Explorer" are now missing and I need to go through the "double-click the registered server" ritual again. And again, and again.

What am I doing wrong here? Why don't the servers "stick" in Object Explorer?

TIA

barkingdog

P.S. I have Sql 2005 SP1 installed on my box.

When the server is listed under Object Explorer you've got an active connection to that server. You probably don't want to open active connections to each of your servers every time you run Management Studio.

If you don't already have the window open, go to the View menu and open up the Registered Servers window. I keep that one open, and double-click a server in that window when I need to connect to perform some maintenance on the server. It pops right up in the Object Explorer window and I'm ready to work.

|||>>>

When the server is listed under Object Explorer you've got an active connection to that server.

Thanks for the reply. It makes sense but I sure didn't think of it myself.

Three barks and a tail wave

Barkingdog

can't restore from backup

Hi,
I have two sql servers at two different facilities. I usually take the
backups from the live system and restore them to the backup system without
any problems until few days ago. The database we have is 21 GB. When I try
to restore it from backup, the restore tries to run for an hour and then an
error pops up:
Microsoft SQL - DMO (ODBC SQL State 42000)
An internal consistency error occurred. Contact technical support for
assistance. RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
I tried it with two different backups and I am still getting the same error.
Any help is appreciated.
KatrinDoes the database come out clean from DBCC CHECKDB and DBCC CHECKCATALOG? If
it does (and you have searched KB and are up-to-date on service pack), I
suggest you open a case with MS Support.
--
Tibor Karaszi
"Katrin Koumpikova" <katrinkump@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OLz5W%23zoDHA.2512@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have two sql servers at two different facilities. I usually take the
> backups from the live system and restore them to the backup system without
> any problems until few days ago. The database we have is 21 GB. When I try
> to restore it from backup, the restore tries to run for an hour and then
an
> error pops up:
> Microsoft SQL - DMO (ODBC SQL State 42000)
> An internal consistency error occurred. Contact technical support for
> assistance. RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
> I tried it with two different backups and I am still getting the same
error.
> Any help is appreciated.
>
> Katrin
>

Can't replicate between two servers

Hello Guys
i have a big problem between my company's two branches
the problem in brief is
we have two sites in two cities
and of course two SQL servers in the two sites
so we have a dbase application but when we try to get the updated records
from one site to another we got this error messege
" SQL server is not exist or access denied "
but the replication application connected to both servers and we can ping
eachother
any help will be appreciated
thanks
P.S: please send a copy on my e-mail taha@.delta-group.org
Can you connect using Query Analyzer or Enterprise Manager? Ping only tells
you there's network connectivity. You need to ensure you have the
appropriate permissions to access SQL Server and of course, the ports must
be open since you're likely to have some kinda firewall/gateway in between.
joe.
"Eng. Taha Khamis A.Wahab" <taha@.delta-group.org> wrote in message
news:OrH25%23qFFHA.1260@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello Guys
> i have a big problem between my company's two branches
> the problem in brief is
> we have two sites in two cities
> and of course two SQL servers in the two sites
> so we have a dbase application but when we try to get the updated records
> from one site to another we got this error messege
> " SQL server is not exist or access denied "
> but the replication application connected to both servers and we can ping
> eachother
> any help will be appreciated
> thanks
> P.S: please send a copy on my e-mail taha@.delta-group.org
>
|||yes i check to ports in the firewall and it's all opened
"Joe Yong" <jyongNOSPAM@.scalabilityexperts.com> wrote in message
news:eaqo0UwFFHA.2296@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Can you connect using Query Analyzer or Enterprise Manager? Ping only
tells
> you there's network connectivity. You need to ensure you have the
> appropriate permissions to access SQL Server and of course, the ports must
> be open since you're likely to have some kinda firewall/gateway in
between.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> joe.
>
> "Eng. Taha Khamis A.Wahab" <taha@.delta-group.org> wrote in message
> news:OrH25%23qFFHA.1260@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
records[vbcol=seagreen]
ping
>

Can't Register Servers in Enterprise Managers

I posted this in the wrong forum, so if you see this in SQL Programming it was a mistake on my part.
I have two users that can't register servers in Enterprise Manager, and they're getting "login failed" when they try.
I've searched the errorlog file for any indication of the failure, but there are no entries being written. I've tried deleting and re-adding the accounts, but no luck.
Suggestions on now to fix?
Thanks,
DaleHow are they trying to authenticate...windows or SQL?
"Dale Chavez" wrote:
> I posted this in the wrong forum, so if you see this in SQL Programming it was a mistake on my part.
> I have two users that can't register servers in Enterprise Manager, and they're getting "login failed" when they try.
>
> I've searched the errorlog file for any indication of the failure, but there are no entries being written. I've tried deleting and re-adding the accounts, but no luck.
>
> Suggestions on now to fix?
>
> Thanks,
> Dale
>

Can't Register Server.

Hi : )

I have been trying to register 2 Servers in my Analysis Manager,
and have 2 different problems with them. One of them is my localhost.

When trying to connect my localhost I get this message:

Cannot connect to the repository
Analysis Server: CIN
Error[Microsoft][Administrador de controladores ODBC]El nombre del origen de datos es demasiado largo

Then, the Remote server I need to connect sends an error message like this:
Cannot connect to the repository.
Analysis Server: SVR
Error: No se pudo usar "; el archivo ya está en uso.

Would you please help me :S

Hello. I think that you are talking about AS2000.

Are you a member of the OLAP-administrators group on your localhost machine and on the remote server?

In the second case I think that this AS2000 server already have another user that have connected to AS2000 with the cube manager/editor.

These are guesses!

HTH

Thomas Ivarsson

|||

Hello Thomas,
I've verified my permissions on OLAP Administrators Group in both, my localhost and the server. The problem with my localhost happens just few days ago, I used to work fine on it but, suddenly start the error message. I have tried to unregister the server and register again but the problem persists : (

With the remote server what I have made is a trust relationship which is the way I get connected to the rest of the servers, but I do not understand the kind of error message. I have verified that no other uses have a session on it.

Thanks for your time in advance : )

|||

Hello again mayraims

I would check the following:

Difference in service packs/versions/patches between your local mmc-snapin, your local AS2000 and the remote server.|||

Thank You again Thomas,

Actually my problem to get connected in my local server was the repository Connection String

Cant register local instance of SQL Server on local server PLUS

I have two servers running SQL Server on the same network and I am
receiving errors registering the various instances as follows:

SERVER1 tried to register the local instance (by netname, ip address
and local)
ERROR Msg: SQL Server does not exist or access denied (ConnectionOpen |
Connect()

SERVER1 trying to register Server2's default instance (by netname, ip
address and local) COMPLETES SUCESSFULLY (THIS INSTANCE CAN BE REGISTER
FROM ANYWHERE PROVIDED THAT YOU HAVE PERMISSION(S)

SERVER2 tried to register the local instance (by netname, ip address
and local)
ERROR Msg: ssl security error -connectionopen(secdoclienthandshake)

SERVER2 trying to register Server1's default instance (by netname, ip
address and local)
ERROR Msg: SQL Server does not exist or access denied (ConnectionOpen |
Connect()

Note: SERVER2's default instance was registered locally before, but I
wanted to change the alias name so I unregistered it and tried to
register it with the new alias. I only change the alias name not the
underlying information which was previously registered. That is when I
started to receive the errors. ALSO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS MATTERS, BUT
D01 WAS CLONED FROM D02 BECAUSE OF A DISK FAILURE. I DID HOWEVER RUN
THE NEWSID UTILITY.

Any Ideas?(war_wheelan@.yahoo.com) writes:
> SERVER1 tried to register the local instance (by netname, ip address
> and local)
> ERROR Msg: SQL Server does not exist or access denied (ConnectionOpen |
> Connect()

Have you ensured that is running?

> SERVER1 trying to register Server2's default instance (by netname, ip
> address and local) COMPLETES SUCESSFULLY (THIS INSTANCE CAN BE REGISTER
> FROM ANYWHERE PROVIDED THAT YOU HAVE PERMISSION(S)
> SERVER2 tried to register the local instance (by netname, ip address
> and local)
> ERROR Msg: ssl security error -connectionopen(secdoclienthandshake)

Could http://support.microsoft.com/kb/322144/EN-US/ apply?

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||Erland,

Thanks for the pointer to the Microsoft article. In the future, I will
look on the Microsoft's web site more throughly.

Answer: Someone in my organization must of inadvertently enable
encryption for the client without my knowledge.

Thanks.

can't open an .msc file to monitor SQL server on another machine

I need to be able to monitor our SQL server's performance on a new machine
but simply copying the .msc file I use to this machine and trying to open it
isn't working. I get this error message:
MMC cannot open the selected file
If it matters, the problelm machine is Windows 2000 and mine is XP.
I thought that I might need to just open MMC and create a new .msc but it's
been so long I can't really remember how to do it at all!
Need some help here...
Paul
That is not how Enterprise Manager work. You need to install the client tools on the client machine
where you want to run Enterprise Manager. You then, on that client machine, register the SQL Servers
you want to work against.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Paul" <noone@.executespammers.org> wrote in message news:uRmbagrkFHA.2920@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I need to be able to monitor our SQL server's performance on a new machine
> but simply copying the .msc file I use to this machine and trying to open it
> isn't working. I get this error message:
> MMC cannot open the selected file
> If it matters, the problelm machine is Windows 2000 and mine is XP.
> I thought that I might need to just open MMC and create a new .msc but it's
> been so long I can't really remember how to do it at all!
> Need some help here...
> Paul
>
|||Already did that.
Paul
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:%23GDi90rkFHA.320@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> That is not how Enterprise Manager work. You need to install the client
tools on the client machine
> where you want to run Enterprise Manager. You then, on that client
machine, register the SQL Servers
> you want to work against.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Paul" <noone@.executespammers.org> wrote in message
news:uRmbagrkFHA.2920@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
machine[vbcol=seagreen]
open it[vbcol=seagreen]
it's
>
|||Then why the need to transfer the msc file? What purpose would that serve? Perhaps I'm
misunderstanding what you want to achieve?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Paul" <noone@.executespammers.org> wrote in message news:e5al0QskFHA.3960@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Already did that.
> Paul
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:%23GDi90rkFHA.320@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> tools on the client machine
> machine, register the SQL Servers
> news:uRmbagrkFHA.2920@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> machine
> open it
> it's
>
|||I have a monitor that graphs SQL Server access methods, processor time, disk
access, and some other stuff in real time through MMC. It's useful to see
what's happening at a glance.
I solved it, though. I needed to manually add the ActiveX control "System
Monitor Control", and I have recreate everything - SQL Server access
methods, system stats, etc (which was a pain). I guess in this case saved
MSC files are not designed to be portable.
Paul
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:%23jckIiskFHA.1148@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Then why the need to transfer the msc file? What purpose would that serve?
Perhaps I'm
> misunderstanding what you want to achieve?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Paul" <noone@.executespammers.org> wrote in message
news:e5al0QskFHA.3960@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
but
>
|||I see, you are talking about performance monitor, not Enterprise Manager. Sorry, I haven't used
perfmon enough to know whether the msc file is portable and if so between which OS versions etc.
Consider posting this to a windows group (as perfmon is a windows tool) if the need arises again.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Paul" <noone@.executespammers.org> wrote in message news:%23dLuD1skFHA.576@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I have a monitor that graphs SQL Server access methods, processor time, disk
> access, and some other stuff in real time through MMC. It's useful to see
> what's happening at a glance.
> I solved it, though. I needed to manually add the ActiveX control "System
> Monitor Control", and I have recreate everything - SQL Server access
> methods, system stats, etc (which was a pain). I guess in this case saved
> MSC files are not designed to be portable.
> Paul
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:%23jckIiskFHA.1148@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Perhaps I'm
> news:e5al0QskFHA.3960@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> in
> but
>

Can't login with remote servers

Able to connect just fine at the main server but when trying to get the other
servers to connect get the following error.
Using SQL Server 2005 Express Edition:
Connection Failed:
SQLState: '01000'
SQL Server Error: 11004
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][TCP/IP Sockets]ConnectionOpen (Connect()).
Connection Failed:
SQLState: '08001'
SQL Server Error: 6
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][TCP/IP Sockets]Specified SQL server not
found.
Any ideas why I would be getting this error? All information is correct
according to where it is in the first server.
Dusitn D'Amour
Coyote Solutions Group
505.742.0066
www.coyotesolutions.com
Sure. See the archives of this list. We've discussed this any number of
times. Check back here if you don't find the answer(s).
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________
Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
Between now and Nov. 6th 2006 you can sign up for a substantial discount.
Look for the "Early Bird" discount checkbox on the registration form...
------
Microsoft MVP, Author, Mentor
Microsoft MVP
"Dustin D''Amour" <DustinDAmour@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B13047CD-D41D-43A4-B80D-350B30B372AF@.microsoft.com...
> Able to connect just fine at the main server but when trying to get the
> other
> servers to connect get the following error.
> Using SQL Server 2005 Express Edition:
> Connection Failed:
> SQLState: '01000'
> SQL Server Error: 11004
> [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][TCP/IP Sockets]ConnectionOpen
> (Connect()).
> Connection Failed:
> SQLState: '08001'
> SQL Server Error: 6
> [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][TCP/IP Sockets]Specified SQL server
> not
> found.
>
> Any ideas why I would be getting this error? All information is correct
> according to where it is in the first server.
>
> --
> Dusitn D'Amour
> Coyote Solutions Group
> 505.742.0066
> www.coyotesolutions.com
|||Where is the archive located?
I should also mention that mixed authentication is selected and the remote
servers still can not connect.
Dusitn D'Amour
Coyote Solutions Group
505.742.0066
www.coyotesolutions.com
"William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote:

> Sure. See the archives of this list. We've discussed this any number of
> times. Check back here if you don't find the answer(s).
> --
> ____________________________________
> William (Bill) Vaughn
> Author, Mentor, Consultant
> Microsoft MVP
> INETA Speaker
> www.betav.com/blog/billva
> www.betav.com
> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> __________________________________
> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
> Between now and Nov. 6th 2006 you can sign up for a substantial discount.
> Look for the "Early Bird" discount checkbox on the registration form...
> ------
>
> Microsoft MVP, Author, Mentor
> Microsoft MVP
> "Dustin D''Amour" <DustinDAmour@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B13047CD-D41D-43A4-B80D-350B30B372AF@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||I found http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306865 which show the same error I'm
having but when I go through the steps for the workaround it still doesn't
work.
Anyone else have any other ideas?
Dusitn D'Amour
Coyote Solutions Group
505.742.0066
www.coyotesolutions.com
"Dustin D''Amour" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Where is the archive located?
> I should also mention that mixed authentication is selected and the remote
> servers still can not connect.
>
> --
> Dusitn D'Amour
> Coyote Solutions Group
> 505.742.0066
> www.coyotesolutions.com
>
> "William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote:
|||This thread had an answer that seems to work for now.
Dusitn D'Amour
Coyote Solutions Group
505.742.0066
www.coyotesolutions.com
"Dustin D''Amour" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I found http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306865 which show the same error I'm
> having but when I go through the steps for the workaround it still doesn't
> work.
> Anyone else have any other ideas?
>
> --
> Dusitn D'Amour
> Coyote Solutions Group
> 505.742.0066
> www.coyotesolutions.com
>
> "Dustin D''Amour" wrote:
|||Forgot t put the link in.
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=129105&SiteID=1
Dusitn D''Amour
Coyote Solutions Group
505.742.0066
www.coyotesolutions.com
"Dustin D''Amour" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> This thread had an answer that seems to work for now.
> --
> Dusitn D'Amour
> Coyote Solutions Group
> 505.742.0066
> www.coyotesolutions.com
>
> "Dustin D''Amour" wrote:

Can't Kill Process

We unfortunately found out that our databases were not being backed up for 95
days on one of our servers because the backup job got "stuck" on one of the
databases. I don't know why. I stopped the job but now the backups will not
work because the backup job from May is still "in process" on that one
database.
I tried killing the process but it won't work because there is "a rollback
in process". I rebooted the server but that did not help.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can kill this process on this one
database?
Thanks,
David McCarterFYI -
A rollback takes AT LEAST the same amount of time as it did to perform
whatever operations a transaction was doing. So, if a process has been
running for 1 hour and you decide to roll it back, then it would take at
least another hour to undo whatever it had already done.
"dotNetDave" <dotNetDave@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:27D4013A-7E4E-493A-A56E-EA9AD1D1CF27@.microsoft.com...
> We unfortunately found out that our databases were not being backed up for
> 95
> days on one of our servers because the backup job got "stuck" on one of
> the
> databases. I don't know why. I stopped the job but now the backups will
> not
> work because the backup job from May is still "in process" on that one
> database.
> I tried killing the process but it won't work because there is "a
> rollback
> in process". I rebooted the server but that did not help.
> Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can kill this process on this
> one
> database?
> Thanks,
> David McCarter|||So are you saying the rollback is going to take 95 days? That's how long
the process was running before someone noticed it.
"The DBA" wrote:
> FYI -
> A rollback takes AT LEAST the same amount of time as it did to perform
> whatever operations a transaction was doing. So, if a process has been
> running for 1 hour and you decide to roll it back, then it would take at
> least another hour to undo whatever it had already done.
> "dotNetDave" <dotNetDave@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:27D4013A-7E4E-493A-A56E-EA9AD1D1CF27@.microsoft.com...
> > We unfortunately found out that our databases were not being backed up for
> > 95
> > days on one of our servers because the backup job got "stuck" on one of
> > the
> > databases. I don't know why. I stopped the job but now the backups will
> > not
> > work because the backup job from May is still "in process" on that one
> > database.
> >
> > I tried killing the process but it won't work because there is "a
> > rollback
> > in process". I rebooted the server but that did not help.
> >
> > Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can kill this process on this
> > one
> > database?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David McCarter
>

Can't Kill Process

We unfortunately found out that our databases were not being backed up for 95
days on one of our servers because the backup job got "stuck" on one of the
databases. I don't know why. I stopped the job but now the backups will not
work because the backup job from May is still "in process" on that one
database.
I tried killing the process but it won't work because there is "a rollback
in process". I rebooted the server but that did not help.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can kill this process on this one
database?
Thanks,
David McCarter
FYI -
A rollback takes AT LEAST the same amount of time as it did to perform
whatever operations a transaction was doing. So, if a process has been
running for 1 hour and you decide to roll it back, then it would take at
least another hour to undo whatever it had already done.
"dotNetDave" <dotNetDave@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:27D4013A-7E4E-493A-A56E-EA9AD1D1CF27@.microsoft.com...
> We unfortunately found out that our databases were not being backed up for
> 95
> days on one of our servers because the backup job got "stuck" on one of
> the
> databases. I don't know why. I stopped the job but now the backups will
> not
> work because the backup job from May is still "in process" on that one
> database.
> I tried killing the process but it won't work because there is "a
> rollback
> in process". I rebooted the server but that did not help.
> Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can kill this process on this
> one
> database?
> Thanks,
> David McCarter
|||So are you saying the rollback is going to take 95 days? That's how long
the process was running before someone noticed it.
"The DBA" wrote:

> FYI -
> A rollback takes AT LEAST the same amount of time as it did to perform
> whatever operations a transaction was doing. So, if a process has been
> running for 1 hour and you decide to roll it back, then it would take at
> least another hour to undo whatever it had already done.
> "dotNetDave" <dotNetDave@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:27D4013A-7E4E-493A-A56E-EA9AD1D1CF27@.microsoft.com...
>

Can't Kill Process

We unfortunately found out that our databases were not being backed up for 9
5
days on one of our servers because the backup job got "stuck" on one of the
databases. I don't know why. I stopped the job but now the backups will not
work because the backup job from May is still "in process" on that one
database.
I tried killing the process but it won't work because there is "a rollback
in process". I rebooted the server but that did not help.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can kill this process on this one
database?
Thanks,
David McCarterFYI -
A rollback takes AT LEAST the same amount of time as it did to perform
whatever operations a transaction was doing. So, if a process has been
running for 1 hour and you decide to roll it back, then it would take at
least another hour to undo whatever it had already done.
"dotNetDave" <dotNetDave@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:27D4013A-7E4E-493A-A56E-EA9AD1D1CF27@.microsoft.com...
> We unfortunately found out that our databases were not being backed up for
> 95
> days on one of our servers because the backup job got "stuck" on one of
> the
> databases. I don't know why. I stopped the job but now the backups will
> not
> work because the backup job from May is still "in process" on that one
> database.
> I tried killing the process but it won't work because there is "a
> rollback
> in process". I rebooted the server but that did not help.
> Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can kill this process on this
> one
> database?
> Thanks,
> David McCarter|||So are you saying the rollback is going to take 95 days? That's how long
the process was running before someone noticed it.
"The DBA" wrote:

> FYI -
> A rollback takes AT LEAST the same amount of time as it did to perform
> whatever operations a transaction was doing. So, if a process has been
> running for 1 hour and you decide to roll it back, then it would take at
> least another hour to undo whatever it had already done.
> "dotNetDave" <dotNetDave@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:27D4013A-7E4E-493A-A56E-EA9AD1D1CF27@.microsoft.com...
>

cant get the correct num of rows from Oracle. in 2 SQL servers ( sql 7.0 and SQL 2000)

I ve got an Oracle 9. server running on AIx.
and One SQL Server 2000 Sp 3on w2k
and SQL server 7 on Winnt 4.0
i did link this Oracle server on both SQL serevrs. When run an simple SQL
query i got different results.
Num of rows are always different In SQL server 7.0 i got 49430 rows( when i
check in oracle its correct)
In SQL SErver 2000 i got
49336 rows.
Any idea ?Possibly handling of NULLS can cause a difference. Can you post the two queries?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23szluxctEHA.3156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I ve got an Oracle 9. server running on AIx.
> and One SQL Server 2000 Sp 3on w2k
> and SQL server 7 on Winnt 4.0
>
> i did link this Oracle server on both SQL serevrs. When run an simple SQL
> query i got different results.
> Num of rows are always different In SQL server 7.0 i got 49430 rows( when i
> check in oracle its correct)
> In SQL SErver 2000 i got
> 49336 rows.
> Any idea ?
>
>|||Ty tibor..
Query is the same
select count(*) from openquery(baanb,'select t$item from baan.ttiitm001501')
in SQL server 7.0 this query returns 49439
in SQL server 2000 it returns 49340
and not only in this query .. if number of rows returned from the openquery
statement get biggers number of lost rows get bigger too
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:Oi34g5ctEHA.636@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Possibly handling of NULLS can cause a difference. Can you post the two
queries?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23szluxctEHA.3156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >I ve got an Oracle 9. server running on AIx.
> >
> > and One SQL Server 2000 Sp 3on w2k
> > and SQL server 7 on Winnt 4.0
> >
> >
> > i did link this Oracle server on both SQL serevrs. When run an simple
SQL
> > query i got different results.
> >
> > Num of rows are always different In SQL server 7.0 i got 49430 rows(
when i
> > check in oracle its correct)
> > In SQL SErver 2000 i
got
> > 49336 rows.
> >
> > Any idea ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>|||Is there a tool like Profiler available for Oracle? If so, can you trace the query submitted to
Oracle and see if they are the same? What if you execute the same query directly on the Oracle
Server? What number of rows is the correct number?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23pKPi9ctEHA.2520@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Ty tibor..
> Query is the same
> select count(*) from openquery(baanb,'select t$item from baan.ttiitm001501')
> in SQL server 7.0 this query returns 49439
> in SQL server 2000 it returns 49340
>
> and not only in this query .. if number of rows returned from the openquery
> statement get biggers number of lost rows get bigger too
>
>
>
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:Oi34g5ctEHA.636@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Possibly handling of NULLS can cause a difference. Can you post the two
> queries?
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23szluxctEHA.3156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >I ve got an Oracle 9. server running on AIx.
>> >
>> > and One SQL Server 2000 Sp 3on w2k
>> > and SQL server 7 on Winnt 4.0
>> >
>> >
>> > i did link this Oracle server on both SQL serevrs. When run an simple
> SQL
>> > query i got different results.
>> >
>> > Num of rows are always different In SQL server 7.0 i got 49430 rows(
> when i
>> > check in oracle its correct)
>> > In SQL SErver 2000 i
> got
>> > 49336 rows.
>> >
>> > Any idea ?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>|||This Query is just an Example..
When i run this query in Oracle number of rows is the same as SQL server 7.0
it returns 49439 ..
Both MDAC versions are 2.8
Both Oracle ODBC Drivers r same 9.2.0.5
i did try all attributes.. and check hundreds of pages from MSDN or OTN but
no solution yet ..
when i try to get records from Oracle there is always 99 rows difference.
between SQL 2000 and SQL 7.0
Not according to rowsize, or table or other things...
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:u%23c3xDdtEHA.1720@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Is there a tool like Profiler available for Oracle? If so, can you trace
the query submitted to
> Oracle and see if they are the same? What if you execute the same query
directly on the Oracle
> Server? What number of rows is the correct number?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23pKPi9ctEHA.2520@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Ty tibor..
> >
> > Query is the same
> >
> > select count(*) from openquery(baanb,'select t$item from
baan.ttiitm001501')
> >
> > in SQL server 7.0 this query returns 49439
> >
> > in SQL server 2000 it returns 49340
> >
> >
> > and not only in this query .. if number of rows returned from the
openquery
> > statement get biggers number of lost rows get bigger too
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in
> > message news:Oi34g5ctEHA.636@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> Possibly handling of NULLS can cause a difference. Can you post the two
> > queries?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >>
> >>
> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:%23szluxctEHA.3156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >> >I ve got an Oracle 9. server running on AIx.
> >> >
> >> > and One SQL Server 2000 Sp 3on w2k
> >> > and SQL server 7 on Winnt 4.0
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > i did link this Oracle server on both SQL serevrs. When run an simple
> > SQL
> >> > query i got different results.
> >> >
> >> > Num of rows are always different In SQL server 7.0 i got 49430 rows(
> > when i
> >> > check in oracle its correct)
> >> > In SQL SErver 2000
i
> > got
> >> > 49336 rows.
> >> >
> >> > Any idea ?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>|||The reason I asked to post the query was to see whether there is anything in the query that can
explain the difference. As I said in the original post, one such possibility id difference regarding
handling of NULLs.
Also, did you try to catch the SQL statement submitted form SQL Server to Oracle to see if they are
the same from 7.0 and 2000?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:usBSPMdtEHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> This Query is just an Example..
> When i run this query in Oracle number of rows is the same as SQL server 7.0
> it returns 49439 ..
> Both MDAC versions are 2.8
> Both Oracle ODBC Drivers r same 9.2.0.5
> i did try all attributes.. and check hundreds of pages from MSDN or OTN but
> no solution yet ..
> when i try to get records from Oracle there is always 99 rows difference.
> between SQL 2000 and SQL 7.0
> Not according to rowsize, or table or other things...
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:u%23c3xDdtEHA.1720@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Is there a tool like Profiler available for Oracle? If so, can you trace
> the query submitted to
>> Oracle and see if they are the same? What if you execute the same query
> directly on the Oracle
>> Server? What number of rows is the correct number?
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23pKPi9ctEHA.2520@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> > Ty tibor..
>> >
>> > Query is the same
>> >
>> > select count(*) from openquery(baanb,'select t$item from
> baan.ttiitm001501')
>> >
>> > in SQL server 7.0 this query returns 49439
>> >
>> > in SQL server 2000 it returns 49340
>> >
>> >
>> > and not only in this query .. if number of rows returned from the
> openquery
>> > statement get biggers number of lost rows get bigger too
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
> in
>> > message news:Oi34g5ctEHA.636@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> >> Possibly handling of NULLS can cause a difference. Can you post the two
>> > queries?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:%23szluxctEHA.3156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> >I ve got an Oracle 9. server running on AIx.
>> >> >
>> >> > and One SQL Server 2000 Sp 3on w2k
>> >> > and SQL server 7 on Winnt 4.0
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > i did link this Oracle server on both SQL serevrs. When run an simple
>> > SQL
>> >> > query i got different results.
>> >> >
>> >> > Num of rows are always different In SQL server 7.0 i got 49430 rows(
>> > when i
>> >> > check in oracle its correct)
>> >> > In SQL SErver 2000
> i
>> > got
>> >> > 49336 rows.
>> >> >
>> >> > Any idea ?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>|||Hi Tibor..
I did Trace it on Oracle..
In trace Oracle Send number of 49439 rows for all queries, but SQL 200 and
SQL 7.0 get rows different.
And Also i did try it with an Test Oracle Server..
Its the same..
SQL 2000 get 99 rows less then SQL 7.0
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:e0kGfVdtEHA.2072@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> The reason I asked to post the query was to see whether there is anything
in the query that can
> explain the difference. As I said in the original post, one such
possibility id difference regarding
> handling of NULLs.
> Also, did you try to catch the SQL statement submitted form SQL Server to
Oracle to see if they are
> the same from 7.0 and 2000?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:usBSPMdtEHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > This Query is just an Example..
> >
> > When i run this query in Oracle number of rows is the same as SQL server
7.0
> > it returns 49439 ..
> >
> > Both MDAC versions are 2.8
> > Both Oracle ODBC Drivers r same 9.2.0.5
> >
> > i did try all attributes.. and check hundreds of pages from MSDN or OTN
but
> > no solution yet ..
> >
> > when i try to get records from Oracle there is always 99 rows
difference.
> > between SQL 2000 and SQL 7.0
> >
> > Not according to rowsize, or table or other things...
> >
> >
> >
> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in
> > message news:u%23c3xDdtEHA.1720@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >> Is there a tool like Profiler available for Oracle? If so, can you
trace
> > the query submitted to
> >> Oracle and see if they are the same? What if you execute the same query
> > directly on the Oracle
> >> Server? What number of rows is the correct number?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >>
> >>
> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:%23pKPi9ctEHA.2520@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> > Ty tibor..
> >> >
> >> > Query is the same
> >> >
> >> > select count(*) from openquery(baanb,'select t$item from
> > baan.ttiitm001501')
> >> >
> >> > in SQL server 7.0 this query returns 49439
> >> >
> >> > in SQL server 2000 it returns 49340
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > and not only in this query .. if number of rows returned from the
> > openquery
> >> > statement get biggers number of lost rows get bigger too
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
wrote
> > in
> >> > message news:Oi34g5ctEHA.636@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> >> Possibly handling of NULLS can cause a difference. Can you post the
two
> >> > queries?
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:%23szluxctEHA.3156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >> >> >I ve got an Oracle 9. server running on AIx.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > and One SQL Server 2000 Sp 3on w2k
> >> >> > and SQL server 7 on Winnt 4.0
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > i did link this Oracle server on both SQL serevrs. When run an
simple
> >> > SQL
> >> >> > query i got different results.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Num of rows are always different In SQL server 7.0 i got 49430
rows(
> >> > when i
> >> >> > check in oracle its correct)
> >> >> > In SQL SErver
2000
> > i
> >> > got
> >> >> > 49336 rows.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Any idea ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>|||Hi Melih,
I've seen this once and i my case it turns out to be a missing primary key
( which was my fault, I accidentely deleted it ). Any Indexes involved ?
Regards,
Meinhard
"Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:elS%23DKetEHA.2072@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi Tibor..
> I did Trace it on Oracle..
> In trace Oracle Send number of 49439 rows for all queries, but SQL 200 and
> SQL 7.0 get rows different.
> And Also i did try it with an Test Oracle Server..
> Its the same..
> SQL 2000 get 99 rows less then SQL 7.0
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
> in
> message news:e0kGfVdtEHA.2072@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> The reason I asked to post the query was to see whether there is anything
> in the query that can
>> explain the difference. As I said in the original post, one such
> possibility id difference regarding
>> handling of NULLs.
>> Also, did you try to catch the SQL statement submitted form SQL Server to
> Oracle to see if they are
>> the same from 7.0 and 2000?
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:usBSPMdtEHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> > This Query is just an Example..
>> >
>> > When i run this query in Oracle number of rows is the same as SQL
>> > server
> 7.0
>> > it returns 49439 ..
>> >
>> > Both MDAC versions are 2.8
>> > Both Oracle ODBC Drivers r same 9.2.0.5
>> >
>> > i did try all attributes.. and check hundreds of pages from MSDN or
>> > OTN
> but
>> > no solution yet ..
>> >
>> > when i try to get records from Oracle there is always 99 rows
> difference.
>> > between SQL 2000 and SQL 7.0
>> >
>> > Not according to rowsize, or table or other things...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
>> > wrote
> in
>> > message news:u%23c3xDdtEHA.1720@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> >> Is there a tool like Profiler available for Oracle? If so, can you
> trace
>> > the query submitted to
>> >> Oracle and see if they are the same? What if you execute the same
>> >> query
>> > directly on the Oracle
>> >> Server? What number of rows is the correct number?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:%23pKPi9ctEHA.2520@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Ty tibor..
>> >> >
>> >> > Query is the same
>> >> >
>> >> > select count(*) from openquery(baanb,'select t$item from
>> > baan.ttiitm001501')
>> >> >
>> >> > in SQL server 7.0 this query returns 49439
>> >> >
>> >> > in SQL server 2000 it returns 49340
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > and not only in this query .. if number of rows returned from the
>> > openquery
>> >> > statement get biggers number of lost rows get bigger too
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
> wrote
>> > in
>> >> > message news:Oi34g5ctEHA.636@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> Possibly handling of NULLS can cause a difference. Can you post the
> two
>> >> > queries?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> >> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> >> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:%23szluxctEHA.3156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> >I ve got an Oracle 9. server running on AIx.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > and One SQL Server 2000 Sp 3on w2k
>> >> >> > and SQL server 7 on Winnt 4.0
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > i did link this Oracle server on both SQL serevrs. When run an
> simple
>> >> > SQL
>> >> >> > query i got different results.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Num of rows are always different In SQL server 7.0 i got 49430
> rows(
>> >> > when i
>> >> >> > check in oracle its correct)
>> >> >> > In SQL SErver
> 2000
>> > i
>> >> > got
>> >> >> > 49336 rows.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Any idea ?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>|||I was referring to tracing the SQL query, not the result.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:elS%23DKetEHA.2072@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi Tibor..
> I did Trace it on Oracle..
> In trace Oracle Send number of 49439 rows for all queries, but SQL 200 and
> SQL 7.0 get rows different.
> And Also i did try it with an Test Oracle Server..
> Its the same..
> SQL 2000 get 99 rows less then SQL 7.0
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:e0kGfVdtEHA.2072@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> The reason I asked to post the query was to see whether there is anything
> in the query that can
>> explain the difference. As I said in the original post, one such
> possibility id difference regarding
>> handling of NULLs.
>> Also, did you try to catch the SQL statement submitted form SQL Server to
> Oracle to see if they are
>> the same from 7.0 and 2000?
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:usBSPMdtEHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> > This Query is just an Example..
>> >
>> > When i run this query in Oracle number of rows is the same as SQL server
> 7.0
>> > it returns 49439 ..
>> >
>> > Both MDAC versions are 2.8
>> > Both Oracle ODBC Drivers r same 9.2.0.5
>> >
>> > i did try all attributes.. and check hundreds of pages from MSDN or OTN
> but
>> > no solution yet ..
>> >
>> > when i try to get records from Oracle there is always 99 rows
> difference.
>> > between SQL 2000 and SQL 7.0
>> >
>> > Not according to rowsize, or table or other things...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
> in
>> > message news:u%23c3xDdtEHA.1720@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> >> Is there a tool like Profiler available for Oracle? If so, can you
> trace
>> > the query submitted to
>> >> Oracle and see if they are the same? What if you execute the same query
>> > directly on the Oracle
>> >> Server? What number of rows is the correct number?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:%23pKPi9ctEHA.2520@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Ty tibor..
>> >> >
>> >> > Query is the same
>> >> >
>> >> > select count(*) from openquery(baanb,'select t$item from
>> > baan.ttiitm001501')
>> >> >
>> >> > in SQL server 7.0 this query returns 49439
>> >> >
>> >> > in SQL server 2000 it returns 49340
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > and not only in this query .. if number of rows returned from the
>> > openquery
>> >> > statement get biggers number of lost rows get bigger too
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
> wrote
>> > in
>> >> > message news:Oi34g5ctEHA.636@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> Possibly handling of NULLS can cause a difference. Can you post the
> two
>> >> > queries?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> >> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> >> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:%23szluxctEHA.3156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> >I ve got an Oracle 9. server running on AIx.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > and One SQL Server 2000 Sp 3on w2k
>> >> >> > and SQL server 7 on Winnt 4.0
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > i did link this Oracle server on both SQL serevrs. When run an
> simple
>> >> > SQL
>> >> >> > query i got different results.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Num of rows are always different In SQL server 7.0 i got 49430
> rows(
>> >> > when i
>> >> >> > check in oracle its correct)
>> >> >> > In SQL SErver
> 2000
>> > i
>> >> > got
>> >> >> > 49336 rows.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Any idea ?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>|||its not about a specific table. I got this result in every Query.
SQL 2000 get 99 rows less then the rowcount of the table
"Meinhard Schnoor-Matriciani" <codehack@.freenet.de> wrote in message
news:2tknamF207lttU1@.uni-berlin.de...
> Hi Melih,
> I've seen this once and i my case it turns out to be a missing primary key
> ( which was my fault, I accidentely deleted it ). Any Indexes involved ?
> Regards,
> Meinhard
> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:elS%23DKetEHA.2072@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Hi Tibor..
> >
> > I did Trace it on Oracle..
> >
> > In trace Oracle Send number of 49439 rows for all queries, but SQL 200
and
> > SQL 7.0 get rows different.
> >
> > And Also i did try it with an Test Oracle Server..
> >
> > Its the same..
> >
> > SQL 2000 get 99 rows less then SQL 7.0
> >
> >
> >
> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
> > in
> > message news:e0kGfVdtEHA.2072@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> The reason I asked to post the query was to see whether there is
anything
> > in the query that can
> >> explain the difference. As I said in the original post, one such
> > possibility id difference regarding
> >> handling of NULLs.
> >>
> >> Also, did you try to catch the SQL statement submitted form SQL Server
to
> > Oracle to see if they are
> >> the same from 7.0 and 2000?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >>
> >>
> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:usBSPMdtEHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> > This Query is just an Example..
> >> >
> >> > When i run this query in Oracle number of rows is the same as SQL
> >> > server
> > 7.0
> >> > it returns 49439 ..
> >> >
> >> > Both MDAC versions are 2.8
> >> > Both Oracle ODBC Drivers r same 9.2.0.5
> >> >
> >> > i did try all attributes.. and check hundreds of pages from MSDN or
> >> > OTN
> > but
> >> > no solution yet ..
> >> >
> >> > when i try to get records from Oracle there is always 99 rows
> > difference.
> >> > between SQL 2000 and SQL 7.0
> >> >
> >> > Not according to rowsize, or table or other things...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
> >> > wrote
> > in
> >> > message news:u%23c3xDdtEHA.1720@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >> >> Is there a tool like Profiler available for Oracle? If so, can you
> > trace
> >> > the query submitted to
> >> >> Oracle and see if they are the same? What if you execute the same
> >> >> query
> >> > directly on the Oracle
> >> >> Server? What number of rows is the correct number?
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:%23pKPi9ctEHA.2520@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> >> > Ty tibor..
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Query is the same
> >> >> >
> >> >> > select count(*) from openquery(baanb,'select t$item from
> >> > baan.ttiitm001501')
> >> >> >
> >> >> > in SQL server 7.0 this query returns 49439
> >> >> >
> >> >> > in SQL server 2000 it returns 49340
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > and not only in this query .. if number of rows returned from the
> >> > openquery
> >> >> > statement get biggers number of lost rows get bigger too
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
> > wrote
> >> > in
> >> >> > message news:Oi34g5ctEHA.636@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> >> >> Possibly handling of NULLS can cause a difference. Can you post
the
> > two
> >> >> > queries?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> >> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> >> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:%23szluxctEHA.3156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >> >> >> >I ve got an Oracle 9. server running on AIx.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > and One SQL Server 2000 Sp 3on w2k
> >> >> >> > and SQL server 7 on Winnt 4.0
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > i did link this Oracle server on both SQL serevrs. When run an
> > simple
> >> >> > SQL
> >> >> >> > query i got different results.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Num of rows are always different In SQL server 7.0 i got 49430
> > rows(
> >> >> > when i
> >> >> >> > check in oracle its correct)
> >> >> >> > In SQL
SErver
> > 2000
> >> > i
> >> >> > got
> >> >> >> > 49336 rows.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Any idea ?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>|||when i run trace including all events and objects on SQL2000.. there is
nothing seems wrong to me..
if u want i can give u the trace output.
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:%23idNF5etEHA.1012@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I was referring to tracing the SQL query, not the result.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:elS%23DKetEHA.2072@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Hi Tibor..
> >
> > I did Trace it on Oracle..
> >
> > In trace Oracle Send number of 49439 rows for all queries, but SQL 200
and
> > SQL 7.0 get rows different.
> >
> > And Also i did try it with an Test Oracle Server..
> >
> > Its the same..
> >
> > SQL 2000 get 99 rows less then SQL 7.0
> >
> >
> >
> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in
> > message news:e0kGfVdtEHA.2072@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> The reason I asked to post the query was to see whether there is
anything
> > in the query that can
> >> explain the difference. As I said in the original post, one such
> > possibility id difference regarding
> >> handling of NULLs.
> >>
> >> Also, did you try to catch the SQL statement submitted form SQL Server
to
> > Oracle to see if they are
> >> the same from 7.0 and 2000?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >>
> >>
> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:usBSPMdtEHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> > This Query is just an Example..
> >> >
> >> > When i run this query in Oracle number of rows is the same as SQL
server
> > 7.0
> >> > it returns 49439 ..
> >> >
> >> > Both MDAC versions are 2.8
> >> > Both Oracle ODBC Drivers r same 9.2.0.5
> >> >
> >> > i did try all attributes.. and check hundreds of pages from MSDN or
OTN
> > but
> >> > no solution yet ..
> >> >
> >> > when i try to get records from Oracle there is always 99 rows
> > difference.
> >> > between SQL 2000 and SQL 7.0
> >> >
> >> > Not according to rowsize, or table or other things...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
wrote
> > in
> >> > message news:u%23c3xDdtEHA.1720@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >> >> Is there a tool like Profiler available for Oracle? If so, can you
> > trace
> >> > the query submitted to
> >> >> Oracle and see if they are the same? What if you execute the same
query
> >> > directly on the Oracle
> >> >> Server? What number of rows is the correct number?
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:%23pKPi9ctEHA.2520@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> >> > Ty tibor..
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Query is the same
> >> >> >
> >> >> > select count(*) from openquery(baanb,'select t$item from
> >> > baan.ttiitm001501')
> >> >> >
> >> >> > in SQL server 7.0 this query returns 49439
> >> >> >
> >> >> > in SQL server 2000 it returns 49340
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > and not only in this query .. if number of rows returned from the
> >> > openquery
> >> >> > statement get biggers number of lost rows get bigger too
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
> > wrote
> >> > in
> >> >> > message news:Oi34g5ctEHA.636@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> >> >> Possibly handling of NULLS can cause a difference. Can you post
the
> > two
> >> >> > queries?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> >> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> >> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:%23szluxctEHA.3156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >> >> >> >I ve got an Oracle 9. server running on AIx.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > and One SQL Server 2000 Sp 3on w2k
> >> >> >> > and SQL server 7 on Winnt 4.0
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > i did link this Oracle server on both SQL serevrs. When run an
> > simple
> >> >> > SQL
> >> >> >> > query i got different results.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Num of rows are always different In SQL server 7.0 i got 49430
> > rows(
> >> >> > when i
> >> >> >> > check in oracle its correct)
> >> >> >> > In SQL
SErver
> > 2000
> >> > i
> >> >> > got
> >> >> >> > 49336 rows.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Any idea ?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>|||I was referring to a trace on the Oracle database, to see what SQL code the Oracle database
receives...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23LDd4vmtEHA.820@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> when i run trace including all events and objects on SQL2000.. there is
> nothing seems wrong to me..
> if u want i can give u the trace output.
>
>
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:%23idNF5etEHA.1012@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> I was referring to tracing the SQL query, not the result.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:elS%23DKetEHA.2072@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> > Hi Tibor..
>> >
>> > I did Trace it on Oracle..
>> >
>> > In trace Oracle Send number of 49439 rows for all queries, but SQL 200
> and
>> > SQL 7.0 get rows different.
>> >
>> > And Also i did try it with an Test Oracle Server..
>> >
>> > Its the same..
>> >
>> > SQL 2000 get 99 rows less then SQL 7.0
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
> in
>> > message news:e0kGfVdtEHA.2072@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> >> The reason I asked to post the query was to see whether there is
> anything
>> > in the query that can
>> >> explain the difference. As I said in the original post, one such
>> > possibility id difference regarding
>> >> handling of NULLs.
>> >>
>> >> Also, did you try to catch the SQL statement submitted form SQL Server
> to
>> > Oracle to see if they are
>> >> the same from 7.0 and 2000?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:usBSPMdtEHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> >> > This Query is just an Example..
>> >> >
>> >> > When i run this query in Oracle number of rows is the same as SQL
> server
>> > 7.0
>> >> > it returns 49439 ..
>> >> >
>> >> > Both MDAC versions are 2.8
>> >> > Both Oracle ODBC Drivers r same 9.2.0.5
>> >> >
>> >> > i did try all attributes.. and check hundreds of pages from MSDN or
> OTN
>> > but
>> >> > no solution yet ..
>> >> >
>> >> > when i try to get records from Oracle there is always 99 rows
>> > difference.
>> >> > between SQL 2000 and SQL 7.0
>> >> >
>> >> > Not according to rowsize, or table or other things...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
> wrote
>> > in
>> >> > message news:u%23c3xDdtEHA.1720@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> Is there a tool like Profiler available for Oracle? If so, can you
>> > trace
>> >> > the query submitted to
>> >> >> Oracle and see if they are the same? What if you execute the same
> query
>> >> > directly on the Oracle
>> >> >> Server? What number of rows is the correct number?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> >> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> >> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:%23pKPi9ctEHA.2520@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> > Ty tibor..
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Query is the same
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > select count(*) from openquery(baanb,'select t$item from
>> >> > baan.ttiitm001501')
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > in SQL server 7.0 this query returns 49439
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > in SQL server 2000 it returns 49340
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > and not only in this query .. if number of rows returned from the
>> >> > openquery
>> >> >> > statement get biggers number of lost rows get bigger too
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
>> > wrote
>> >> > in
>> >> >> > message news:Oi34g5ctEHA.636@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> >> Possibly handling of NULLS can cause a difference. Can you post
> the
>> > two
>> >> >> > queries?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> >> >> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> >> >> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:%23szluxctEHA.3156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> >> >I ve got an Oracle 9. server running on AIx.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > and One SQL Server 2000 Sp 3on w2k
>> >> >> >> > and SQL server 7 on Winnt 4.0
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > i did link this Oracle server on both SQL serevrs. When run an
>> > simple
>> >> >> > SQL
>> >> >> >> > query i got different results.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Num of rows are always different In SQL server 7.0 i got 49430
>> > rows(
>> >> >> > when i
>> >> >> >> > check in oracle its correct)
>> >> >> >> > In SQL
> SErver
>> > 2000
>> >> > i
>> >> >> > got
>> >> >> >> > 49336 rows.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Any idea ?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>|||I did both..
Oracle exeutes the same statement and Returns the same number of rows both
SQL 7 and SQL 2000.
Problem is with the SQL server .. SQL server do something with the Rowset
and gets always 99 rows less then the original row count..
Melih SARICA
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:%23IY7OKstEHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I was referring to a trace on the Oracle database, to see what SQL code
the Oracle database
> receives...
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23LDd4vmtEHA.820@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > when i run trace including all events and objects on SQL2000.. there is
> > nothing seems wrong to me..
> >
> > if u want i can give u the trace output.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in
> > message news:%23idNF5etEHA.1012@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> I was referring to tracing the SQL query, not the result.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >>
> >>
> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:elS%23DKetEHA.2072@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> > Hi Tibor..
> >> >
> >> > I did Trace it on Oracle..
> >> >
> >> > In trace Oracle Send number of 49439 rows for all queries, but SQL
200
> > and
> >> > SQL 7.0 get rows different.
> >> >
> >> > And Also i did try it with an Test Oracle Server..
> >> >
> >> > Its the same..
> >> >
> >> > SQL 2000 get 99 rows less then SQL 7.0
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
wrote
> > in
> >> > message news:e0kGfVdtEHA.2072@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> >> The reason I asked to post the query was to see whether there is
> > anything
> >> > in the query that can
> >> >> explain the difference. As I said in the original post, one such
> >> > possibility id difference regarding
> >> >> handling of NULLs.
> >> >>
> >> >> Also, did you try to catch the SQL statement submitted form SQL
Server
> > to
> >> > Oracle to see if they are
> >> >> the same from 7.0 and 2000?
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:usBSPMdtEHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> >> > This Query is just an Example..
> >> >> >
> >> >> > When i run this query in Oracle number of rows is the same as SQL
> > server
> >> > 7.0
> >> >> > it returns 49439 ..
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Both MDAC versions are 2.8
> >> >> > Both Oracle ODBC Drivers r same 9.2.0.5
> >> >> >
> >> >> > i did try all attributes.. and check hundreds of pages from MSDN
or
> > OTN
> >> > but
> >> >> > no solution yet ..
> >> >> >
> >> >> > when i try to get records from Oracle there is always 99 rows
> >> > difference.
> >> >> > between SQL 2000 and SQL 7.0
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not according to rowsize, or table or other things...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
> > wrote
> >> > in
> >> >> > message news:u%23c3xDdtEHA.1720@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >> >> >> Is there a tool like Profiler available for Oracle? If so, can
you
> >> > trace
> >> >> > the query submitted to
> >> >> >> Oracle and see if they are the same? What if you execute the same
> > query
> >> >> > directly on the Oracle
> >> >> >> Server? What number of rows is the correct number?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> >> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> >> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:%23pKPi9ctEHA.2520@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> >> >> > Ty tibor..
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Query is the same
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > select count(*) from openquery(baanb,'select t$item from
> >> >> > baan.ttiitm001501')
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > in SQL server 7.0 this query returns 49439
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > in SQL server 2000 it returns 49340
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > and not only in this query .. if number of rows returned from
the
> >> >> > openquery
> >> >> >> > statement get biggers number of lost rows get bigger too
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Tibor Karaszi"
<tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
> >> > wrote
> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> > message news:Oi34g5ctEHA.636@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> >> >> >> Possibly handling of NULLS can cause a difference. Can you
post
> > the
> >> > two
> >> >> >> > queries?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> >> >> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> >> >> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> news:%23szluxctEHA.3156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >> >> >> >> >I ve got an Oracle 9. server running on AIx.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > and One SQL Server 2000 Sp 3on w2k
> >> >> >> >> > and SQL server 7 on Winnt 4.0
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > i did link this Oracle server on both SQL serevrs. When run
an
> >> > simple
> >> >> >> > SQL
> >> >> >> >> > query i got different results.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Num of rows are always different In SQL server 7.0 i got
49430
> >> > rows(
> >> >> >> > when i
> >> >> >> >> > check in oracle its correct)
> >> >> >> >> > In SQL
> > SErver
> >> > 2000
> >> >> > i
> >> >> >> > got
> >> >> >> >> > 49336 rows.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Any idea ?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>|||I'm out of ideas, I'm afraid. The only thing I can thing of is some SET setting that changed NULL
handling. Consider opening a case with MS...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eoxztWztEHA.3252@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I did both..
> Oracle exeutes the same statement and Returns the same number of rows both
> SQL 7 and SQL 2000.
> Problem is with the SQL server .. SQL server do something with the Rowset
> and gets always 99 rows less then the original row count..
>
> Melih SARICA
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:%23IY7OKstEHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > I was referring to a trace on the Oracle database, to see what SQL code
> the Oracle database
> > receives...
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >
> >
> > "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23LDd4vmtEHA.820@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > when i run trace including all events and objects on SQL2000.. there is
> > > nothing seems wrong to me..
> > >
> > > if u want i can give u the trace output.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
> in
> > > message news:%23idNF5etEHA.1012@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > >> I was referring to tracing the SQL query, not the result.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:elS%23DKetEHA.2072@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > >> > Hi Tibor..
> > >> >
> > >> > I did Trace it on Oracle..
> > >> >
> > >> > In trace Oracle Send number of 49439 rows for all queries, but SQL
> 200
> > > and
> > >> > SQL 7.0 get rows different.
> > >> >
> > >> > And Also i did try it with an Test Oracle Server..
> > >> >
> > >> > Its the same..
> > >> >
> > >> > SQL 2000 get 99 rows less then SQL 7.0
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
> wrote
> > > in
> > >> > message news:e0kGfVdtEHA.2072@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > >> >> The reason I asked to post the query was to see whether there is
> > > anything
> > >> > in the query that can
> > >> >> explain the difference. As I said in the original post, one such
> > >> > possibility id difference regarding
> > >> >> handling of NULLs.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Also, did you try to catch the SQL statement submitted form SQL
> Server
> > > to
> > >> > Oracle to see if they are
> > >> >> the same from 7.0 and 2000?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > >> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > >> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> >> news:usBSPMdtEHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > >> >> > This Query is just an Example..
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > When i run this query in Oracle number of rows is the same as SQL
> > > server
> > >> > 7.0
> > >> >> > it returns 49439 ..
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Both MDAC versions are 2.8
> > >> >> > Both Oracle ODBC Drivers r same 9.2.0.5
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > i did try all attributes.. and check hundreds of pages from MSDN
> or
> > > OTN
> > >> > but
> > >> >> > no solution yet ..
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > when i try to get records from Oracle there is always 99 rows
> > >> > difference.
> > >> >> > between SQL 2000 and SQL 7.0
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Not according to rowsize, or table or other things...
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
> > > wrote
> > >> > in
> > >> >> > message news:u%23c3xDdtEHA.1720@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > >> >> >> Is there a tool like Profiler available for Oracle? If so, can
> you
> > >> > trace
> > >> >> > the query submitted to
> > >> >> >> Oracle and see if they are the same? What if you execute the same
> > > query
> > >> >> > directly on the Oracle
> > >> >> >> Server? What number of rows is the correct number?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> --
> > >> >> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > >> >> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > >> >> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> >> >> news:%23pKPi9ctEHA.2520@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > >> >> >> > Ty tibor..
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > Query is the same
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > select count(*) from openquery(baanb,'select t$item from
> > >> >> > baan.ttiitm001501')
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > in SQL server 7.0 this query returns 49439
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > in SQL server 2000 it returns 49340
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > and not only in this query .. if number of rows returned from
> the
> > >> >> > openquery
> > >> >> >> > statement get biggers number of lost rows get bigger too
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > "Tibor Karaszi"
> <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
> > >> > wrote
> > >> >> > in
> > >> >> >> > message news:Oi34g5ctEHA.636@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > >> >> >> >> Possibly handling of NULLS can cause a difference. Can you
> post
> > > the
> > >> > two
> > >> >> >> > queries?
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> --
> > >> >> >> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > >> >> >> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > >> >> >> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> "Melih SARICA" <melihsarica@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> >> >> >> news:%23szluxctEHA.3156@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > >> >> >> >> >I ve got an Oracle 9. server running on AIx.
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> > and One SQL Server 2000 Sp 3on w2k
> > >> >> >> >> > and SQL server 7 on Winnt 4.0
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> > i did link this Oracle server on both SQL serevrs. When run
> an
> > >> > simple
> > >> >> >> > SQL
> > >> >> >> >> > query i got different results.
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> > Num of rows are always different In SQL server 7.0 i got
> 49430
> > >> > rows(
> > >> >> >> > when i
> > >> >> >> >> > check in oracle its correct)
> > >> >> >> >> > In SQL
> > > SErver
> > >> > 2000
> > >> >> > i
> > >> >> >> > got
> > >> >> >> >> > 49336 rows.
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> > Any idea ?
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>