Re: Will the following code run when connected to Oracle?

From: <kgoff_at_worldnet.att.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:15:25 GMT
Message-ID: <14Eb9.1427$jG2.96165_at_bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>


Richard,

[Quoted] [Quoted] While I appreciate your response, you really didn't answer my question. Let me try this again.

[Quoted] [Quoted] We have a vertical market app, written in .NET. We sell the app to [Quoted] manufacturers. Most use SQL Server, though we are running into some [Quoted] potential customers who use Oracle. Our app must support both databases.

We have a reporting module, where an end-user can run many different reports [Quoted] based on certain accounts/products. The user might pick 1 account and 10 products, he might pick 20 accounts and 20 products....or maybe 50 accounts [Quoted] and 2000 products. The software must query the invoice tables in the back-end database against what the user selected. There may be dozens of [Quoted] users doing the same thing at the same time.

[Quoted] So the application needs to collect the user selections for accounts/items, [Quoted] build temporary tables in the back-end database that represent the list of [Quoted] accts/items that the user selected, and then run a SQL statement that joins [Quoted] [Quoted] the back-end invoice table with the account/product temp tables that, again, [Quoted] represent what the user selected.

[Quoted] [Quoted] The code that I posted represents a stripped down version of what we need to [Quoted] [Quoted] do. It isn't 'SQL Server' logic...it represents the only way that I know to [Quoted] address this reporting requirements. Much of our reporting requirements [Quoted] involve things that are variable at run-time. So my question is...will this [Quoted] [Quoted] code run without modification when connected to SQL Server, or is the syntax [Quoted] for creating temp tables a bit different?

[Quoted] [Quoted] If you know of a better way to address this reporting requirement, I'd be very interested to know what it is.

Kevin

Kevin Received on Fri Aug 30 2002 - 08:15:25 CEST

Original text of this message