Re: Queries give impossible results

Had you actually READ the posts you'd be aware that Jake HAS supplied a great deal of information regarding this matter. I believe you've 'stepped in it'; please stop tracking it about the building.

Given that using the UPPER() function returns the proper result Jake's assessment that it's data-related (possibly due to the tool used for insertion) appears to be correct. I also imagine that Jake is busy working on what anomalies are present in the data causing such behaviour. Yes, an explain plan may help dissect this and shed light on the problem, it also may not. Confidentiality agreements can be quite, well, 'sticky' and being overly cautious is not a crime. He is NOT the 'boss' in this situation, someone ELSE is and Jake is subject to his superior's wishes and decisions. And, you have no place second-guessing that decision.

You've again made rude, useless comments and baseless accusations. Is this what you do best? Prove that Jake is lying; I doubt you can.

"Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-family_at_attbi.com> wrote in message news:<V_4C9.40922$WL3.17139_at_rwcrnsc54>...
> Sure Jake. I've read all the posts (did so before I posted). Mr. Lewis is
> a recognized expert and it is very surprising that his simple request gets
> so much resistance.
>
> If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, its probably a duck.
> Jim
> "Jake S" <nospam_at_nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:py1C9.47$od5.5879_at_read2.inet.fi...
> > As I explained I think we are in wrong tracks. When I figure this out,
> I'll
> > post a solution with explanation. Until then we might as well concider
> this
> > case closed.
> >
> > You claim me to post false messages without checking my posts to other
> > newsgroups. It's quite easy to trace someone's message history, so I don't
> > think that was a nice thing to do.
> >
> > - Jake -
> >
> > "Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-family_at_attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:pj8B9.10527$WL3.2608_at_rwcrnsc54...
> > > Jake,
> > > You ask for help but don't provide rudimentary details (like the explain
> > > plan). An explain plan isn't going to reveal any company secrets. (I
> > > really can't see how the table names or index names are going to
> "reveal"
> > > some company secret and if you feel they are just edit the darn thing.)
> We
> > > don't know what company (and probably no one cares). Given the simple
> task
> > > (generating an explain plan) takes less effort than all this excuses why
> > > not.
> > >
> > > Gentlemen,
> > > I think we have a canard.
> > > Jim
> > >
> >
> >
Received on Thu Nov 21 2002 - 10:28:45 CST