Can't see or access tables through linked server

Apparently I am doing something wrong and I don't know what!

I am needing to link a remote Oracle Server to SQL Server 2005.

I have (I think) followed the steps precisely to create the linked

server both by code or through the SQL Server Management Studio and I

get the same results eith way. I can see the linked server and there are no apparent errors but I can't see or access the tables from Oracle.

If I try a Select statement on a table from the linked server I get the

error "Msg 208, Level 16, Stat 1, Server {servername}, Line 1 Invalid

object name"

I am assuming this is a permissions issue but I don't see it. I

am an admin on both the SQL Server DB and the Oracle DB with full

access and I am using windows authentication.

I have mapped local logons to the remote logon and tried almost every

possible combination of security contexts and other users on the local

and linked server but I always get the same result. The Oracle server shows it is linked but I can't get to any table on the linked server.

Any help on this would be really appreciated. I have already spent two days on this.

Thanks in advance.

This kb should help.

support.microsoft.com/kb/280106

|||

I don't think this applies. This KB article only covers up to Windows 2000 and Oracle 8.i.

We have either 2003 server or XP (happening on two machines) and Oracle 10g.

Also, I am not getting any error messages as the article discusses, I just can't see the tables.

Thanks for the help.

sql

Can't see a New Data Driven Subscription link

Hi:

I have SSRS 2005 standard but can't see the New Data Driven Subscription link so I am not sure how to create it! Please help..

Thanks.

As far as I am concerned the data driven subscription is an enterprise-only feature.

cheers,
Markus

Can't query linked Access database specified by UNC

Hello,
I link Access database to sql server 2000 with ole db 4 provider; tell it to
logon with username ADMIN, empty password.
If the database is on a local drive, everything works correctly, I see the
tables of the access database in EM, and I successfully run query like
select * from accessdb...table1
If the database is on a remote drive and is specified by UNC, I still see
the tables in EM when EM runs on the server; but when I run EM on another
machine, focusing the tables under the linked server returns error
0x80004005. Same when I try to run a query (even on the server):
OLE DB provider 'Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0' reported an error.
[OLE/DB provider returned message: The Microsoft Jet database engine cannot
open the file '\\server\share\accessdb.mdb'. It is already opened
exclusively by another user, or you need permission to view its data.]
OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0'
IDBInitialize::Initialize returned 0x80004005: ].
Sql server is running on domain administrative account. At the same time as
the message is issued, I can log on that account on the server, launch
Access, and successfully open that same remote database using the same UNC
path.
What gives?
thanks,
Vadim Rapp
Polyscience, Inc.The first is to do is ensure that the database is not being
opened exclusively by other users. If that's all fine then
the error is likely related to permissions.
The account accessing the database needs a minimum of
something similar to Create, Destroy, Read, Write (depending
on the OS) on the folder where the mdb and ldb lives so it
can work with the .ldb file. Those are the minimum
permissions needed in general but it depends upon what
version of Access, what version of MDAC, what OS.
If the permissions are correct, you need to drill down
further to the access control and make sure that the account
has change permissions on the folder where the ldb file
resides. Make sure these are correct by explicitly setting
the permissions for the account.
I've seen several places just use a specific folder for just
the mdb (and consequently the ldb) and give the account full
control over that folder to make things less convoluted in
terms of permissions and the requirement for the ldb file.
-Sue
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:35:38 -0600, "Vadim Rapp"
<vrapp@.nospam.polyscience.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>I link Access database to sql server 2000 with ole db 4 provider; tell it to
>logon with username ADMIN, empty password.
>If the database is on a local drive, everything works correctly, I see the
>tables of the access database in EM, and I successfully run query like
>select * from accessdb...table1
>If the database is on a remote drive and is specified by UNC, I still see
>the tables in EM when EM runs on the server; but when I run EM on another
>machine, focusing the tables under the linked server returns error
>0x80004005. Same when I try to run a query (even on the server):
>OLE DB provider 'Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0' reported an error.
>[OLE/DB provider returned message: The Microsoft Jet database engine cannot
>open the file '\\server\share\accessdb.mdb'. It is already opened
>exclusively by another user, or you need permission to view its data.]
>OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0'
>IDBInitialize::Initialize returned 0x80004005: ].
>Sql server is running on domain administrative account. At the same time as
>the message is issued, I can log on that account on the server, launch
>Access, and successfully open that same remote database using the same UNC
>path.
>What gives?
>
>thanks,
>Vadim Rapp
>Polyscience, Inc.|||Hello Sue:
You wrote on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:23:38 -0700:
SH> The first is to do is ensure that the database is not being
SH> opened exclusively by other users. If that's all fine then
SH> the error is likely related to permissions.
I thought that as well; that's why, as I wrote, I manually logged on the sql
server machine, with the same userid as sqlserver; started Access and opened
the same database successfully.
In other words, I manually did exactly what sql server couldn't do, with the
same login id on the same machine.
Vadim|||Yes...but you still need to check the permissions - the
whole ldb thing. And you need to make sure the permissions
are explicitly set. Logging on and starting access and
opening the database manually is not the same thing.
-Sue
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:07:49 -0600, "Vadim Rapp"
<vrapp@.nospam.polyscience.com> wrote:
>Hello Sue:
>You wrote on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:23:38 -0700:
> SH> The first is to do is ensure that the database is not being
> SH> opened exclusively by other users. If that's all fine then
> SH> the error is likely related to permissions.
>I thought that as well; that's why, as I wrote, I manually logged on the sql
>server machine, with the same userid as sqlserver; started Access and opened
>the same database successfully.
>In other words, I manually did exactly what sql server couldn't do, with the
>same login id on the same machine.
>Vadim|||Not that it's to much help, but I've seen a similar issue with Excel files.
I never really found a solution other than having the files on the
SQLServer. I've also tried with various accounts that has full admin access
to the server, domain, local machine etc. but to no avail. I'd be happy to
know the solution/reason since it's a bit annoying that I have to put the
files on the SQLServer to make it work.
Regards
Steen
Vadim Rapp wrote:
> Hello Sue:
> You wrote on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:23:38 -0700:
>> The first is to do is ensure that the database is not being
>> opened exclusively by other users. If that's all fine then
>> the error is likely related to permissions.
> I thought that as well; that's why, as I wrote, I manually logged on
> the sql server machine, with the same userid as sqlserver; started
> Access and opened the same database successfully.
> In other words, I manually did exactly what sql server couldn't do,
> with the same login id on the same machine.
> Vadim|||Hello Steen:
You wrote in conference
microsoft.public.sqlserver.security,microsoft.public.sqlserver.server on
Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:02:07 +0100:
SP> Not that it's to much help, but I've seen a similar issue with Excel
SP> files. I never really found a solution other than having the files on
SP> the SQLServer. I've also tried with various accounts that has full
SP> admin access to the server, domain, local machine etc. but to no avail.
SP> I'd be happy to know the solution/reason since it's a bit annoying that
SP> I have to put the files on the SQLServer to make it work.
the only good news is that, as I've found, it works correctly with SQL
Server 2005.
Vadim|||Hello Sue:
You wrote in conference
microsoft.public.sqlserver.security,microsoft.public.sqlserver.server on
Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:11:38 -0700:
SH> Yes...but you still need to check the permissions - the
SH> whole ldb thing. And you need to make sure the permissions
SH> are explicitly set. Logging on and starting access and
SH> opening the database manually is not the same thing.
hmm... if I open the database manually, obviously, Access is creating the
ldb... thus, it can do it... How is it not the same thing?
And it looks like in sql server 2005 it works just fine.
Vadim|||SQL Server does not start up Access and then open up an mdb.
It accesses the mdb.
Just like it's different if you double click a file vs. open
an application and then do a File, Open to open the file.
-Sue
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:24:46 -0600, "Vadim Rapp"
<vr@.myrealbox.nospam.com> wrote:
>Hello Sue:
>You wrote in conference
>microsoft.public.sqlserver.security,microsoft.public.sqlserver.server on
>Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:11:38 -0700:
> SH> Yes...but you still need to check the permissions - the
> SH> whole ldb thing. And you need to make sure the permissions
> SH> are explicitly set. Logging on and starting access and
> SH> opening the database manually is not the same thing.
>hmm... if I open the database manually, obviously, Access is creating the
>ldb... thus, it can do it... How is it not the same thing?
>And it looks like in sql server 2005 it works just fine.
>Vadim|||Vadim,
That last example wasn't a good one. Nonetheless, SQL Server
doesn't start Access and then open a database.
Other than security issues, combinations of MDAC/Jet drivers
can also cause problems and you may want to check those. If
you feel certain that this is a bug in SQL Server, you can
open a case with product support. You will not be charged
for the incident if it is a bug.
-Sue
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:24:46 -0600, "Vadim Rapp"
<vr@.myrealbox.nospam.com> wrote:
>Hello Sue:
>You wrote in conference
>microsoft.public.sqlserver.security,microsoft.public.sqlserver.server on
>Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:11:38 -0700:
> SH> Yes...but you still need to check the permissions - the
> SH> whole ldb thing. And you need to make sure the permissions
> SH> are explicitly set. Logging on and starting access and
> SH> opening the database manually is not the same thing.
>hmm... if I open the database manually, obviously, Access is creating the
>ldb... thus, it can do it... How is it not the same thing?
>And it looks like in sql server 2005 it works just fine.
>Vadim|||one thing that worked for me on loading dumps from UNCs is that i had
to use an absolute UNC path and not the share name.
for example:
if i had a share named "share" on folder X on my C drive
rather than going to //myComputer/share
i had to go to //myComputer/C$/X
and everything worked fine...it is worth a shot.
hth,
hans
Sue Hoegemeier wrote:
> Vadim,
> That last example wasn't a good one. Nonetheless, SQL Server
> doesn't start Access and then open a database.
> Other than security issues, combinations of MDAC/Jet drivers
> can also cause problems and you may want to check those. If
> you feel certain that this is a bug in SQL Server, you can
> open a case with product support. You will not be charged
> for the incident if it is a bug.
> -Sue
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:24:46 -0600, "Vadim Rapp"
> <vr@.myrealbox.nospam.com> wrote:
> >Hello Sue:
> >You wrote in conference
>microsoft.public.sqlserver.security,microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
on
> >Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:11:38 -0700:
> >
> > SH> Yes...but you still need to check the permissions - the
> > SH> whole ldb thing. And you need to make sure the permissions
> > SH> are explicitly set. Logging on and starting access and
> > SH> opening the database manually is not the same thing.
> >
> >hmm... if I open the database manually, obviously, Access is
creating the
> >ldb... thus, it can do it... How is it not the same thing?
> >
> >And it looks like in sql server 2005 it works just fine.
> >
> >Vadim

Can't query linked Access database specified by UNC

Hello,
I link Access database to sql server 2000 with ole db 4 provider; tell it to
logon with username ADMIN, empty password.
If the database is on a local drive, everything works correctly, I see the
tables of the access database in EM, and I successfully run query like
select * from accessdb...table1
If the database is on a remote drive and is specified by UNC, I still see
the tables in EM when EM runs on the server; but when I run EM on another
machine, focusing the tables under the linked server returns error
0x80004005. Same when I try to run a query (even on the server):
OLE DB provider 'Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0' reported an error.
[OLE/DB provider returned message: The Microsoft Jet database engine cannot
open the file '\\server\share\accessdb.mdb'. It is already opened
exclusively by another user, or you need permission to view its data.]
OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0'
IDBInitialize::Initialize returned 0x80004005: ].
Sql server is running on domain administrative account. At the same time as
the message is issued, I can log on that account on the server, launch
Access, and successfully open that same remote database using the same UNC
path.
What gives?
thanks,
Vadim Rapp
Polyscience, Inc.
The first is to do is ensure that the database is not being
opened exclusively by other users. If that's all fine then
the error is likely related to permissions.
The account accessing the database needs a minimum of
something similar to Create, Destroy, Read, Write (depending
on the OS) on the folder where the mdb and ldb lives so it
can work with the .ldb file. Those are the minimum
permissions needed in general but it depends upon what
version of Access, what version of MDAC, what OS.
If the permissions are correct, you need to drill down
further to the access control and make sure that the account
has change permissions on the folder where the ldb file
resides. Make sure these are correct by explicitly setting
the permissions for the account.
I've seen several places just use a specific folder for just
the mdb (and consequently the ldb) and give the account full
control over that folder to make things less convoluted in
terms of permissions and the requirement for the ldb file.
-Sue
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:35:38 -0600, "Vadim Rapp"
<vrapp@.nospam.polyscience.com> wrote:

>Hello,
>I link Access database to sql server 2000 with ole db 4 provider; tell it to
>logon with username ADMIN, empty password.
>If the database is on a local drive, everything works correctly, I see the
>tables of the access database in EM, and I successfully run query like
>select * from accessdb...table1
>If the database is on a remote drive and is specified by UNC, I still see
>the tables in EM when EM runs on the server; but when I run EM on another
>machine, focusing the tables under the linked server returns error
>0x80004005. Same when I try to run a query (even on the server):
>OLE DB provider 'Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0' reported an error.
>[OLE/DB provider returned message: The Microsoft Jet database engine cannot
>open the file '\\server\share\accessdb.mdb'. It is already opened
>exclusively by another user, or you need permission to view its data.]
>OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0'
>IDBInitialize::Initialize returned 0x80004005: ].
>Sql server is running on domain administrative account. At the same time as
>the message is issued, I can log on that account on the server, launch
>Access, and successfully open that same remote database using the same UNC
>path.
>What gives?
>
>thanks,
>Vadim Rapp
>Polyscience, Inc.
|||Hello Sue:
You wrote on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:23:38 -0700:
SH> The first is to do is ensure that the database is not being
SH> opened exclusively by other users. If that's all fine then
SH> the error is likely related to permissions.
I thought that as well; that's why, as I wrote, I manually logged on the sql
server machine, with the same userid as sqlserver; started Access and opened
the same database successfully.
In other words, I manually did exactly what sql server couldn't do, with the
same login id on the same machine.
Vadim
|||Yes...but you still need to check the permissions - the
whole ldb thing. And you need to make sure the permissions
are explicitly set. Logging on and starting access and
opening the database manually is not the same thing.
-Sue
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:07:49 -0600, "Vadim Rapp"
<vrapp@.nospam.polyscience.com> wrote:

>Hello Sue:
>You wrote on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:23:38 -0700:
> SH> The first is to do is ensure that the database is not being
> SH> opened exclusively by other users. If that's all fine then
> SH> the error is likely related to permissions.
>I thought that as well; that's why, as I wrote, I manually logged on the sql
>server machine, with the same userid as sqlserver; started Access and opened
>the same database successfully.
>In other words, I manually did exactly what sql server couldn't do, with the
>same login id on the same machine.
>Vadim
|||Not that it's to much help, but I've seen a similar issue with Excel files.
I never really found a solution other than having the files on the
SQLServer. I've also tried with various accounts that has full admin access
to the server, domain, local machine etc. but to no avail. I'd be happy to
know the solution/reason since it's a bit annoying that I have to put the
files on the SQLServer to make it work.
Regards
Steen
Vadim Rapp wrote:
> Hello Sue:
> You wrote on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:23:38 -0700:
>
> I thought that as well; that's why, as I wrote, I manually logged on
> the sql server machine, with the same userid as sqlserver; started
> Access and opened the same database successfully.
> In other words, I manually did exactly what sql server couldn't do,
> with the same login id on the same machine.
> Vadim
|||Hello Steen:
You wrote in conference
microsoft.public.sqlserver.security,microsoft.publ ic.sqlserver.server on
Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:02:07 +0100:
SP> Not that it's to much help, but I've seen a similar issue with Excel
SP> files. I never really found a solution other than having the files on
SP> the SQLServer. I've also tried with various accounts that has full
SP> admin access to the server, domain, local machine etc. but to no avail.
SP> I'd be happy to know the solution/reason since it's a bit annoying that
SP> I have to put the files on the SQLServer to make it work.
the only good news is that, as I've found, it works correctly with SQL
Server 2005.
Vadim
|||Hello Sue:
You wrote in conference
microsoft.public.sqlserver.security,microsoft.publ ic.sqlserver.server on
Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:11:38 -0700:
SH> Yes...but you still need to check the permissions - the
SH> whole ldb thing. And you need to make sure the permissions
SH> are explicitly set. Logging on and starting access and
SH> opening the database manually is not the same thing.
hmm... if I open the database manually, obviously, Access is creating the
ldb... thus, it can do it... How is it not the same thing?
And it looks like in sql server 2005 it works just fine.
Vadim
|||SQL Server does not start up Access and then open up an mdb.
It accesses the mdb.
Just like it's different if you double click a file vs. open
an application and then do a File, Open to open the file.
-Sue
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:24:46 -0600, "Vadim Rapp"
<vr@.myrealbox.nospam.com> wrote:

>Hello Sue:
>You wrote in conference
>microsoft.public.sqlserver.security,microsoft.pub lic.sqlserver.server on
>Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:11:38 -0700:
> SH> Yes...but you still need to check the permissions - the
> SH> whole ldb thing. And you need to make sure the permissions
> SH> are explicitly set. Logging on and starting access and
> SH> opening the database manually is not the same thing.
>hmm... if I open the database manually, obviously, Access is creating the
>ldb... thus, it can do it... How is it not the same thing?
>And it looks like in sql server 2005 it works just fine.
>Vadim
|||Vadim,
That last example wasn't a good one. Nonetheless, SQL Server
doesn't start Access and then open a database.
Other than security issues, combinations of MDAC/Jet drivers
can also cause problems and you may want to check those. If
you feel certain that this is a bug in SQL Server, you can
open a case with product support. You will not be charged
for the incident if it is a bug.
-Sue
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:24:46 -0600, "Vadim Rapp"
<vr@.myrealbox.nospam.com> wrote:

>Hello Sue:
>You wrote in conference
>microsoft.public.sqlserver.security,microsoft.pub lic.sqlserver.server on
>Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:11:38 -0700:
> SH> Yes...but you still need to check the permissions - the
> SH> whole ldb thing. And you need to make sure the permissions
> SH> are explicitly set. Logging on and starting access and
> SH> opening the database manually is not the same thing.
>hmm... if I open the database manually, obviously, Access is creating the
>ldb... thus, it can do it... How is it not the same thing?
>And it looks like in sql server 2005 it works just fine.
>Vadim
|||one thing that worked for me on loading dumps from UNCs is that i had
to use an absolute UNC path and not the share name.
for example:
if i had a share named "share" on folder X on my C drive
rather than going to //myComputer/share
i had to go to //myComputer/C$/X
and everything worked fine...it is worth a shot.
hth,
hans
Sue Hoegemeier wrote:
> Vadim,
> That last example wasn't a good one. Nonetheless, SQL Server
> doesn't start Access and then open a database.
> Other than security issues, combinations of MDAC/Jet drivers
> can also cause problems and you may want to check those. If
> you feel certain that this is a bug in SQL Server, you can
> open a case with product support. You will not be charged
> for the incident if it is a bug.
> -Sue
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:24:46 -0600, "Vadim Rapp"
> <vr@.myrealbox.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>microsoft.public.sqlserver.security,microsoft.pub lic.sqlserver.server
on[vbcol=seagreen]
creating the[vbcol=seagreen]

Can't query linked Access database specified by UNC

Hello,
I link Access database to sql server 2000 with ole db 4 provider; tell it to
logon with username ADMIN, empty password.
If the database is on a local drive, everything works correctly, I see the
tables of the access database in EM, and I successfully run query like
select * from accessdb...table1
If the database is on a remote drive and is specified by UNC, I still see
the tables in EM when EM runs on the server; but when I run EM on another
machine, focusing the tables under the linked server returns error
0x80004005. Same when I try to run a query (even on the server):
OLE DB provider 'Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0' reported an error.
[OLE/DB provider returned message: The Microsoft Jet database engine can
not
open the file '\\server\share\accessdb.mdb'. It is already opened
exclusively by another user, or you need permission to view its data.]
OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0'
IDBInitialize::Initialize returned 0x80004005: ].
Sql server is running on domain administrative account. At the same time as
the message is issued, I can log on that account on the server, launch
Access, and successfully open that same remote database using the same UNC
path.
What gives?
thanks,
Vadim Rapp
Polyscience, Inc.The first is to do is ensure that the database is not being
opened exclusively by other users. If that's all fine then
the error is likely related to permissions.
The account accessing the database needs a minimum of
something similar to Create, Destroy, Read, Write (depending
on the OS) on the folder where the mdb and ldb lives so it
can work with the .ldb file. Those are the minimum
permissions needed in general but it depends upon what
version of Access, what version of MDAC, what OS.
If the permissions are correct, you need to drill down
further to the access control and make sure that the account
has change permissions on the folder where the ldb file
resides. Make sure these are correct by explicitly setting
the permissions for the account.
I've seen several places just use a specific folder for just
the mdb (and consequently the ldb) and give the account full
control over that folder to make things less convoluted in
terms of permissions and the requirement for the ldb file.
-Sue
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:35:38 -0600, "Vadim Rapp"
<vrapp@.nospam.polyscience.com> wrote:

>Hello,
>I link Access database to sql server 2000 with ole db 4 provider; tell it t
o
>logon with username ADMIN, empty password.
>If the database is on a local drive, everything works correctly, I see the
>tables of the access database in EM, and I successfully run query like
>select * from accessdb...table1
>If the database is on a remote drive and is specified by UNC, I still see
>the tables in EM when EM runs on the server; but when I run EM on another
>machine, focusing the tables under the linked server returns error
>0x80004005. Same when I try to run a query (even on the server):
>OLE DB provider 'Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0' reported an error.
>[OLE/DB provider returned message: The Microsoft Jet database engine ca
nnot
>open the file '\\server\share\accessdb.mdb'. It is already opened
>exclusively by another user, or you need permission to view its data.]
>OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0'
>IDBInitialize::Initialize returned 0x80004005: ].
>Sql server is running on domain administrative account. At the same time as
>the message is issued, I can log on that account on the server, launch
>Access, and successfully open that same remote database using the same UNC
>path.
>What gives?
>
>thanks,
>Vadim Rapp
>Polyscience, Inc.|||Hello Sue:
You wrote on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:23:38 -0700:
SH> The first is to do is ensure that the database is not being
SH> opened exclusively by other users. If that's all fine then
SH> the error is likely related to permissions.
I thought that as well; that's why, as I wrote, I manually logged on the sql
server machine, with the same userid as sqlserver; started Access and opened
the same database successfully.
In other words, I manually did exactly what sql server couldn't do, with the
same login id on the same machine.
Vadim|||Yes...but you still need to check the permissions - the
whole ldb thing. And you need to make sure the permissions
are explicitly set. Logging on and starting access and
opening the database manually is not the same thing.
-Sue
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:07:49 -0600, "Vadim Rapp"
<vrapp@.nospam.polyscience.com> wrote:

>Hello Sue:
>You wrote on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:23:38 -0700:
> SH> The first is to do is ensure that the database is not being
> SH> opened exclusively by other users. If that's all fine then
> SH> the error is likely related to permissions.
>I thought that as well; that's why, as I wrote, I manually logged on the sq
l
>server machine, with the same userid as sqlserver; started Access and opene
d
>the same database successfully.
>In other words, I manually did exactly what sql server couldn't do, with th
e
>same login id on the same machine.
>Vadim|||Not that it's to much help, but I've seen a similar issue with Excel files.
I never really found a solution other than having the files on the
SQLServer. I've also tried with various accounts that has full admin access
to the server, domain, local machine etc. but to no avail. I'd be happy to
know the solution/reason since it's a bit annoying that I have to put the
files on the SQLServer to make it work.
Regards
Steen
Vadim Rapp wrote:
> Hello Sue:
> You wrote on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:23:38 -0700:
>
> I thought that as well; that's why, as I wrote, I manually logged on
> the sql server machine, with the same userid as sqlserver; started
> Access and opened the same database successfully.
> In other words, I manually did exactly what sql server couldn't do,
> with the same login id on the same machine.
> Vadim|||Hello Steen:
You wrote in conference
microsoft.public.sqlserver.security,microsoft.public.sqlserver.server on
Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:02:07 +0100:
SP> Not that it's to much help, but I've seen a similar issue with Excel
SP> files. I never really found a solution other than having the files on
SP> the SQLServer. I've also tried with various accounts that has full
SP> admin access to the server, domain, local machine etc. but to no avail.
SP> I'd be happy to know the solution/reason since it's a bit annoying that
SP> I have to put the files on the SQLServer to make it work.
the only good news is that, as I've found, it works correctly with SQL
Server 2005.
Vadim|||Hello Sue:
You wrote in conference
microsoft.public.sqlserver.security,microsoft.public.sqlserver.server on
Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:11:38 -0700:
SH> Yes...but you still need to check the permissions - the
SH> whole ldb thing. And you need to make sure the permissions
SH> are explicitly set. Logging on and starting access and
SH> opening the database manually is not the same thing.
hmm... if I open the database manually, obviously, Access is creating the
ldb... thus, it can do it... How is it not the same thing?
And it looks like in sql server 2005 it works just fine.
Vadim|||SQL Server does not start up Access and then open up an mdb.
It accesses the mdb.
Just like it's different if you double click a file vs. open
an application and then do a File, Open to open the file.
-Sue
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:24:46 -0600, "Vadim Rapp"
<vr@.myrealbox.nospam.com> wrote:

>Hello Sue:
>You wrote in conference
>microsoft.public.sqlserver.security,microsoft.public.sqlserver.server on
>Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:11:38 -0700:
> SH> Yes...but you still need to check the permissions - the
> SH> whole ldb thing. And you need to make sure the permissions
> SH> are explicitly set. Logging on and starting access and
> SH> opening the database manually is not the same thing.
>hmm... if I open the database manually, obviously, Access is creating the
>ldb... thus, it can do it... How is it not the same thing?
>And it looks like in sql server 2005 it works just fine.
>Vadim|||Vadim,
That last example wasn't a good one. Nonetheless, SQL Server
doesn't start Access and then open a database.
Other than security issues, combinations of MDAC/Jet drivers
can also cause problems and you may want to check those. If
you feel certain that this is a bug in SQL Server, you can
open a case with product support. You will not be charged
for the incident if it is a bug.
-Sue
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:24:46 -0600, "Vadim Rapp"
<vr@.myrealbox.nospam.com> wrote:

>Hello Sue:
>You wrote in conference
>microsoft.public.sqlserver.security,microsoft.public.sqlserver.server on
>Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:11:38 -0700:
> SH> Yes...but you still need to check the permissions - the
> SH> whole ldb thing. And you need to make sure the permissions
> SH> are explicitly set. Logging on and starting access and
> SH> opening the database manually is not the same thing.
>hmm... if I open the database manually, obviously, Access is creating the
>ldb... thus, it can do it... How is it not the same thing?
>And it looks like in sql server 2005 it works just fine.
>Vadim|||one thing that worked for me on loading dumps from UNCs is that i had
to use an absolute UNC path and not the share name.
for example:
if i had a share named "share" on folder X on my C drive
rather than going to //myComputer/share
i had to go to //myComputer/C$/X
and everything worked fine...it is worth a shot.
hth,
hans
Sue Hoegemeier wrote:
> Vadim,
> That last example wasn't a good one. Nonetheless, SQL Server
> doesn't start Access and then open a database.
> Other than security issues, combinations of MDAC/Jet drivers
> can also cause problems and you may want to check those. If
> you feel certain that this is a bug in SQL Server, you can
> open a case with product support. You will not be charged
> for the incident if it is a bug.
> -Sue
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:24:46 -0600, "Vadim Rapp"
> <vr@.myrealbox.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>microsoft.public.sqlserver.security,microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
on[vbcol=seagreen]
creating the[vbcol=seagreen]

Cant open report...is there an option to open without data?

I've just completed my first Crystal Report, in Crystal 10. The report contains 5 subreports, each of which link to SQL databases. However, I can no longer open the report. When I try to open it, I get the following error message: "crw32.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience."

I've tried a number of things to resolve, mainly regarding my installation of Crystal Reports, but nothing has fixed the problem. Also, others have tried to open the report and can't, so it seems that the file was corrupted.

I believe the problem first happened when I was adding fields to the report and then attempting to preview the report. I had the "Save Data With Report" option turned on, and I believe the issue is related to changes I made that caused a problem linking to the data. I'm thinking that if I can open the report in Design mode only, without the data, I would be able to undo the changes that started giving me this problem. Is there any way I can open the report without the data now (i.e., turn off the "Save Data With Report" option so I can open up the report with the Design tab only, not the Preview tab, and undo my changes)?

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks much.Visit http://support.businessobjects.com and search for the solution|||I am not any help but I have this same issue when I try to add a field to any of the reports...same error. I am all of a sudden in situation where I cannot add or copy and past a field into the report. If I uninstall and reinstall the situation goes away but only temporarily. I am at my wit's end. If I find out what my problem is, maybe it is related and I will let you know what I find. I have gne from it happening every once in a while to where I am totally unproductive......

can't link oracle server
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have you setup a TNS Name under the oracle manager tool?
"Diavolo" <azuolas@.email.lt> a écrit dans le message de news:
u6XuN46rEHA.3748@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello, I have problems linking oracle 8 database to ms sql server, I
> installed oracle 8 client, when I use data import it?s working fine, but
> after:
>
> sp_addlinkedserver 'linked_serveris', 'Oracle',
> 'MSDAORA', 'oarkle_serverio pavadinimas'
> go
> exec sp_addlinkedsrvlogin 'linked_serveris',
> false, 'sa', 'username', 'pass'
>
> I receive error message: ole db error trace [OLE/DB provider OLEDB
> IDBinitialize:: initialize returned status 0x80004005
>
> Mybe problem is that oracle running on non standard port'
>
> Sorry for my English is not my first language
>
>
> --
> Diavolo
> www.news.mums.lt - viskas apie naujienø grupes
> www.tinklai.ten.lt - lietuvos lokalûs tinklai|||Two things: What is your MDAC level and what is the level of the database you
want to talk to.
Oracle no longer supports V8, which is MDAC 2 or lower, I believe.
The current release that both Microsoft and Oracle supports is the Oracle 8i
client (8.1.7.x instead of 8.0.x)
"Jéjé" wrote:
> have you setup a TNS Name under the oracle manager tool?
>
> "Diavolo" <azuolas@.email.lt> a écrit dans le message de news:
> u6XuN46rEHA.3748@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Hello, I have problems linking oracle 8 database to ms sql server, I
> > installed oracle 8 client, when I use data import itâ's working fine, but
> > after:
> >
> >
> >
> > sp_addlinkedserver 'linked_serveris', 'Oracle',
> >
> > 'MSDAORA', 'oarkle_serverio pavadinimas'
> >
> > go
> >
> > exec sp_addlinkedsrvlogin 'linked_serveris',
> >
> > false, 'sa', 'username', 'pass'
> >
> >
> >
> > I receive error message: ole db error trace [OLE/DB provider OLEDB
> > IDBinitialize:: initialize returned status 0x80004005
> >
> >
> >
> > Mybe problem is that oracle running on non standard port'
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry for my English is not my first language
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Diavolo
> > www.news.mums.lt - viskas apie naujienø grupes
> > www.tinklai.ten.lt - lietuvos lokalûs tinklai
>
>|||SGVsbG8sIErpaukhDQoNCmluIHRuc25hbWVzLm9yYSBJIGhhdmUNCg0KS0FEQS54eHguY29tID0N
CiAgKERFU0NSSVBUSU9OID0NCiAgICAoQUREUkVTU19MSVNUID0NCiAgICAgIChBRERSRVNTID0g
KFBST1RPQ09MID0gVENQKShIT1NUID0gMTk1Lnh4Lnh4Lnh4eCkoUE9SVCA9IDE1MjIpKQ0KICAg
ICkNCiAgICAoQ09OTkVDVF9EQVRBID0NCiAgICAgIChTSUQgPSBTVEQpDQogICAgKQ0KICApDQoN
Cg0KdG8gY29ubmVjdCBsaW5rZWQgc2VydmVyIEkgdXNlDQoNCmV4ZWMgc3BfYWRkbGlua2Vkc2Vy
dmVyICdLQURBJywgDQogICdPcmFjbGUnLCAnTVNEQU9SQScsIEtBREEueHh4LmNvbScNCg0KSXQn
cyByaWdodGggb3Igbm90Pw0KDQotLQ0KRGlhdm9sbw0Kd3d3Lm5ld3MubXVtcy5sdCAtIHZpc2th
cyBhcGllIG5hdWppZW74IGdydXBlcw0Kd3d3LnRpbmtsYWkudGVuLmx0IC0gbGlldHV2b3MgbG9r
YWz7cyB0aW5rbGFp|||SGVsbG8sIGpycG0hDQpZb3Ugd3JvdGUgIG9uIE1vbiwgMTEgT2N0IDIwMDQgMTI6MDE6MDQgLTA3
MDA6DQoNCiA+IE9yYWNsZSBubyBsb25nZXIgc3VwcG9ydHMgVjgsIHdoaWNoIGlzIE1EQUMgMiBv
ciBsb3dlciwgSSBiZWxpZXZlLg0KDQogPiBUaGUgY3VycmVudCByZWxlYXNlIHRoYXQgYm90aCBN
aWNyb3NvZnQgYW5kIE9yYWNsZSBzdXBwb3J0cyBpcyB0aGUgT3JhY2xlDQogPiA4aSBjbGllbnQg
KDguMS43LnggaW5zdGVhZCBvZiA4LjAueCkNCg0KDQpUaGUgZGFiYXNlIEkgd2FudCBjb25uZWN0
IHRvIGlzIFY4LiBJbiBteSBjb21wdWV0ciBJIGhhdmUgbGFzdGV0IE1EQUMgb3IgYWJvdXQuIFdo
YXQgY2FuIEkgZG8/DQotLQ0KRGlhdm9sbw0Kd3d3Lm5ld3MubXVtcy5sdCAtIHZpc2thcyBhcGll
IG5hdWppZW7FsyBncnVwZXMNCnd3dy50aW5rbGFpLnRlbi5sdCAtIGxpZXR1dm9zIGxva2Fsxatz
IHRpbmtsYWk=|||Okay, you're my last one... I just talked to Microsoft, and this is ho
to fix it with Windows 2003, SQL 2000, and Oracle 9i:
This is discussed in Q193893 and according to this the registry key "
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\MSDTC\MTxOCI] " should hav
following
entries.
"OracleXaLib"="oraclient9.dll"
"OracleSqlLib"="orasql9.dll"
"OracleOciLib"="oci.dll"
I hope this helps.
Carri
-
carrieorti
----
Posted via http://www.mcse.m
----
View this thread: http://www.mcse.ms/message1142930.htm

can't link oracle server

SGVsbG8sIEkgaGF2ZSBwcm9ibGVtcyBsaW5raW5nIG9yYWNsZS A4IGRhdGFiYXNlIHRvIG1zIHNx
bCBzZXJ2ZXIsIEkgaW5zdGFsbGVkIG9yYWNsZSA4IGNsaWVudC wgd2hlbiBJIHVzZSBkYXRhIGlt
cG9ydCBpdJJzIHdvcmtpbmcgZmluZSwgYnV0IGFmdGVyOg0KDQ oNCg0Kc3BfYWRkbGlua2Vkc2Vy
dmVyICdsaW5rZWRfc2VydmVyaXMnLCAnT3JhY2xlJywgDQoNCi dNU0RBT1JBJywgJ29hcmtsZV9z
ZXJ2ZXJpbyBwYXZhZGluaW1hcycNCg0KZ28NCg0KZXhlYyBzcF 9hZGRsaW5rZWRzcnZsb2dpbiAn
bGlua2VkX3NlcnZlcmlzJywgDQoNCiAgZmFsc2UsICdzYScsIC d1c2VybmFtZScsICdwYXNzJw0K
DQogDQoNCkkgcmVjZWl2ZSBlcnJvciBtZXNzYWdlOiBvbGUgZG IgZXJyb3IgdHJhY2UgW09MRS9E
QiBwcm92aWRlciBPTEVEQiBJREJpbml0aWFsaXplOjogaW5pdG lhbGl6ZSByZXR1cm5lZCBzdGF0
dXMgIDB4ODAwMDQwMDUNCg0KIA0KDQpNeWJlIHByb2JsZW0gaX MgdGhhdCBvcmFjbGUgcnVubmlu
ZyBvbiBub24gc3RhbmRhcmQgcG9ydD8/DQoNCg0KDQpTb3JyeSBmb3IgbXkgRW5nbGlzaCBpcyBu
b3QgbXkgZmlyc3QgbGFuZ3VhZ2UNCg0KDQoNCg0KLS0NCkRpYX ZvbG8NCnd3dy5uZXdzLm11bXMu
bHQgLSB2aXNrYXMgYXBpZSBuYXVqaWVu+CBncnVwZXMNCnd3dy 50aW5rbGFpLnRlbi5sdCAtIGxp
ZXR1dm9zIGxva2Fs+3MgdGlua2xhaQ==
have you setup a TNS Name under the oracle manager tool?
"Diavolo" <azuolas@.email.lt> a crit dans le message de news:
u6XuN46rEHA.3748@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello, I have problems linking oracle 8 database to ms sql server, I
> installed oracle 8 client, when I use data import its working fine, but
> after:
>
> sp_addlinkedserver 'linked_serveris', 'Oracle',
> 'MSDAORA', 'oarkle_serverio pavadinimas'
> go
> exec sp_addlinkedsrvlogin 'linked_serveris',
> false, 'sa', 'username', 'pass'
>
> I receive error message: ole db error trace [OLE/DB provider OLEDB
> IDBinitialize:: initialize returned status 0x80004005
>
> Mybe problem is that oracle running on non standard port?
>
> Sorry for my English is not my first language
>
>
> --
> Diavolo
> www.news.mums.lt - viskas apie naujien grupes
> www.tinklai.ten.lt - lietuvos lokals tinklai
|||Two things: What is your MDAC level and what is the level of the database you
want to talk to.
Oracle no longer supports V8, which is MDAC 2 or lower, I believe.
The current release that both Microsoft and Oracle supports is the Oracle 8i
client (8.1.7.x instead of 8.0.x)
"Jéjé" wrote:

> have you setup a TNS Name under the oracle manager tool?
>
> "Diavolo" <azuolas@.email.lt> a écrit dans le message de news:
> u6XuN46rEHA.3748@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||SGVsbG8sIErpaukhDQoNCmluIHRuc25hbWVzLm9yYSBJIGhhdm UNCg0KS0FEQS54eHguY29tID0N
CiAgKERFU0NSSVBUSU9OID0NCiAgICAoQUREUkVTU19MSVNUID 0NCiAgICAgIChBRERSRVNTID0g
KFBST1RPQ09MID0gVENQKShIT1NUID0gMTk1Lnh4Lnh4Lnh4eC koUE9SVCA9IDE1MjIpKQ0KICAg
ICkNCiAgICAoQ09OTkVDVF9EQVRBID0NCiAgICAgIChTSUQgPS BTVEQpDQogICAgKQ0KICApDQoN
Cg0KdG8gY29ubmVjdCBsaW5rZWQgc2VydmVyIEkgdXNlDQoNCm V4ZWMgc3BfYWRkbGlua2Vkc2Vy
dmVyICdLQURBJywgDQogICdPcmFjbGUnLCAnTVNEQU9SQScsIE tBREEueHh4LmNvbScNCg0KSXQn
cyByaWdodGggb3Igbm90Pw0KDQotLQ0KRGlhdm9sbw0Kd3d3Lm 5ld3MubXVtcy5sdCAtIHZpc2th
cyBhcGllIG5hdWppZW74IGdydXBlcw0Kd3d3LnRpbmtsYWkudG VuLmx0IC0gbGlldHV2b3MgbG9r
YWz7cyB0aW5rbGFp
|||SGVsbG8sIGpycG0hDQpZb3Ugd3JvdGUgIG9uIE1vbiwgMTEgT2 N0IDIwMDQgMTI6MDE6MDQgLTA3
MDA6DQoNCiA+IE9yYWNsZSBubyBsb25nZXIgc3VwcG9ydHMgVj gsIHdoaWNoIGlzIE1EQUMgMiBv
ciBsb3dlciwgSSBiZWxpZXZlLg0KDQogPiBUaGUgY3VycmVudC ByZWxlYXNlIHRoYXQgYm90aCBN
aWNyb3NvZnQgYW5kIE9yYWNsZSBzdXBwb3J0cyBpcyB0aGUgT3 JhY2xlDQogPiA4aSBjbGllbnQg
KDguMS43LnggaW5zdGVhZCBvZiA4LjAueCkNCg0KDQpUaGUgZG FiYXNlIEkgd2FudCBjb25uZWN0
IHRvIGlzIFY4LiBJbiBteSBjb21wdWV0ciBJIGhhdmUgbGFzdG V0IE1EQUMgb3IgYWJvdXQuIFdo
YXQgY2FuIEkgZG8/DQotLQ0KRGlhdm9sbw0Kd3d3Lm5ld3MubXVtcy5sdCAtIHZpc2 thcyBhcGll
IG5hdWppZW7FsyBncnVwZXMNCnd3dy50aW5rbGFpLnRlbi5sdC AtIGxpZXR1dm9zIGxva2Fsxatz
IHRpbmtsYWk=
|||Okay, you're my last one... I just talked to Microsoft, and this is how to fix it with Windows 2003, SQL 2000, and Oracle 9i:
This is discussed in Q193893 and according to this the registry key "
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\MSDTC\MTxOCI ] " should have following
entries.
"OracleXaLib"="oraclient9.dll"
"OracleSqlLib"="orasql9.dll"
"OracleOciLib"="oci.dll"
I hope this helps.
Carrie

can't link oracle server

SGVsbG8sIEkgaGF2ZSBwcm9ibGVtcyBsaW5raW5n
IG9yYWNsZSA4IGRhdGFiYXNlIHRvIG1zIHNx
bCBzZXJ2ZXIsIEkgaW5zdGFsbGVkIG9yYWNsZSA4
IGNsaWVudCwgd2hlbiBJIHVzZSBkYXRhIGlt
cG9ydCBpdJJzIHdvcmtpbmcgZmluZSwgYnV0IGFm
dGVyOg0KDQoNCg0Kc3BfYWRkbGlua2Vkc2Vy
dmVyICdsaW5rZWRfc2VydmVyaXMnLCAnT3JhY2xl
JywgDQoNCidNU0RBT1JBJywgJ29hcmtsZV9z
ZXJ2ZXJpbyBwYXZhZGluaW1hcycNCg0KZ28NCg0K
ZXhlYyBzcF9hZGRsaW5rZWRzcnZsb2dpbiAn
bGlua2VkX3NlcnZlcmlzJywgDQoNCiAgZmFsc2Us
ICdzYScsICd1c2VybmFtZScsICdwYXNzJw0K
DQogDQoNCkkgcmVjZWl2ZSBlcnJvciBtZXNzYWdl
OiBvbGUgZGIgZXJyb3IgdHJhY2UgW09MRS9E
QiBwcm92aWRlciBPTEVEQiBJREJpbml0aWFsaXpl
OjogaW5pdGlhbGl6ZSByZXR1cm5lZCBzdGF0
dXMgIDB4ODAwMDQwMDUNCg0KIA0KDQpNeWJlIHBy
b2JsZW0gaXMgdGhhdCBvcmFjbGUgcnVubmlu
ZyBvbiBub24gc3RhbmRhcmQgcG9ydD8/ DQoNCg0KDQpTb3JyeSBmb3IgbXkgRW5nbGlzaCBp
cyBu
b3QgbXkgZmlyc3QgbGFuZ3VhZ2UNCg0KDQoNCg0K
LS0NCkRpYXZvbG8NCnd3dy5uZXdzLm11bXMu
bHQgLSB2aXNrYXMgYXBpZSBuYXVqaWVu+CBncnVw
ZXMNCnd3dy50aW5rbGFpLnRlbi5sdCAtIGxp
ZXR1dm9zIGxva2Fs+3MgdGlua2xhaQ==have you setup a TNS Name under the oracle manager tool?
"Diavolo" <azuolas@.email.lt> a crit dans le message de news:
u6XuN46rEHA.3748@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello, I have problems linking oracle 8 database to ms sql server, I
> installed oracle 8 client, when I use data import its working fine, but
> after:
>
> sp_addlinkedserver 'linked_serveris', 'Oracle',
> 'MSDAORA', 'oarkle_serverio pavadinimas'
> go
> exec sp_addlinkedsrvlogin 'linked_serveris',
> false, 'sa', 'username', 'pass'
>
> I receive error message: ole db error trace [OLE/DB provider OLEDB
> IDBinitialize:: initialize returned status 0x80004005
>
> Mybe problem is that oracle running on non standard port'
>
> Sorry for my English is not my first language
>
>
> --
> Diavolo
> www.news.mums.lt - viskas apie naujien grupes
> www.tinklai.ten.lt - lietuvos lokals tinklai|||Two things: What is your MDAC level and what is the level of the database yo
u
want to talk to.
Oracle no longer supports V8, which is MDAC 2 or lower, I believe.
The current release that both Microsoft and Oracle supports is the Oracle 8i
client (8.1.7.x instead of 8.0.x)
"Jéjé" wrote:

> have you setup a TNS Name under the oracle manager tool?
>
> "Diavolo" <azuolas@.email.lt> a écrit dans le message de news:
> u6XuN46rEHA.3748@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>|||SGVsbG8sIErpaukhDQoNCmluIHRuc25hbWVzLm9y
YSBJIGhhdmUNCg0KS0FEQS54eHguY29tID0N
CiAgKERFU0NSSVBUSU9OID0NCiAgICAoQUREUkVT
U19MSVNUID0NCiAgICAgIChBRERSRVNTID0g
KFBST1RPQ09MID0gVENQKShIT1NUID0gMTk1Lnh4
Lnh4Lnh4eCkoUE9SVCA9IDE1MjIpKQ0KICAg
ICkNCiAgICAoQ09OTkVDVF9EQVRBID0NCiAgICAg
IChTSUQgPSBTVEQpDQogICAgKQ0KICApDQoN
Cg0KdG8gY29ubmVjdCBsaW5rZWQgc2VydmVyIEkg
dXNlDQoNCmV4ZWMgc3BfYWRkbGlua2Vkc2Vy
dmVyICdLQURBJywgDQogICdPcmFjbGUnLCAnTVNE
QU9SQScsIEtBREEueHh4LmNvbScNCg0KSXQn
cyByaWdodGggb3Igbm90Pw0KDQotLQ0KRGlhdm9s
bw0Kd3d3Lm5ld3MubXVtcy5sdCAtIHZpc2th
cyBhcGllIG5hdWppZW74IGdydXBlcw0Kd3d3LnRp
bmtsYWkudGVuLmx0IC0gbGlldHV2b3MgbG9r
YWz7cyB0aW5rbGFp|||SGVsbG8sIGpycG0hDQpZb3Ugd3JvdGUgIG9uIE1v
biwgMTEgT2N0IDIwMDQgMTI6MDE6MDQgLTA3
MDA6DQoNCiA+IE9yYWNsZSBubyBsb25nZXIgc3Vw
cG9ydHMgVjgsIHdoaWNoIGlzIE1EQUMgMiBv
ciBsb3dlciwgSSBiZWxpZXZlLg0KDQogPiBUaGUg
Y3VycmVudCByZWxlYXNlIHRoYXQgYm90aCBN
aWNyb3NvZnQgYW5kIE9yYWNsZSBzdXBwb3J0cyBp
cyB0aGUgT3JhY2xlDQogPiA4aSBjbGllbnQg
KDguMS43LnggaW5zdGVhZCBvZiA4LjAueCkNCg0K
DQpUaGUgZGFiYXNlIEkgd2FudCBjb25uZWN0
IHRvIGlzIFY4LiBJbiBteSBjb21wdWV0ciBJIGhh
dmUgbGFzdGV0IE1EQUMgb3IgYWJvdXQuIFdo
YXQgY2FuIEkgZG8/ DQotLQ0KRGlhdm9sbw0Kd3d3Lm5ld3MubXVtcy5s
dCAtIHZpc2thcyBhcGll
IG5hdWppZW7FsyBncnVwZXMNCnd3dy50aW5rbGFp
LnRlbi5sdCAtIGxpZXR1dm9zIGxva2Fsxatz
IHRpbmtsYWk=|||Okay, you're my last one... I just talked to Microsoft, and this is how
to fix it with Windows 2003, SQL 2000, and Oracle 9i:
This is discussed in Q193893 and according to this the registry key "
& #91;HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsof
t\MSDTC\MTxOCI] " should have
following
entries.
"OracleXaLib"="oraclient9.dll"
"OracleSqlLib"="orasql9.dll"
"OracleOciLib"="oci.dll"
I hope this helps.
Carrie
carrieortiz
---
Posted via http://www.mcse.ms
---
View this thread: http://www.mcse.ms/message1142930.html

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 ?
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>