Re: Access - ODBC - Oracle Integrity?
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 10:36:13
Message-ID: <odysscci.239.000A9ADB_at_teleport.com>
In article <3kgbn9$d6p_at_warp.cris.com> schmegma_at_cris.com (PS) writes:
>Path: news.teleport.com!psgrain!ee.und.ac.za!quagga.ru.ac.za!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!warp.cris.com!localhost
>From: schmegma_at_cris.com (PS)
>Newsgroups: comp.databases.ms-access,comp.databases.oracle
>Subject: Re: Access - ODBC - Oracle Integrity?
>Date: Sun, 19 Mar 95 04:22:49 GMT
>Organization: Concentric Research Corporation
>Lines: 30
>Distribution: world
>Message-ID: <3kgbn9$d6p_at_warp.cris.com>
>References: <3kc3af$kub_at_eldborg.rhi.hi.is>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: crc1.cris.com
>X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #2.1
>Xref: news.teleport.com comp.databases.ms-access:23205 comp.databases.oracle:29568
>tomase_at_rhi.hi.is (Tomas Erlingsson) wrote:
>>We have Oracle databases running on a unix machine and we are using
>>MS-Access as a front end to view, modify and add data via ODBC and
>>Oracle's SQL*Net.
>>Only recently we discovered a bad error in our system.
>>In cases where we have a NUMBER field in an Oracle table and we are putting
>>data in that field through Access. When we put the number 44 in the field
>>the number 46 is stored instead. This happens every time when we put the
>>number 44, except when we use a SQL pass through query. We have not
>>observed/don't know of any other number that behave like that. We tried
>>doing it with update query, recordset in access basic, by exporting data and
>>use datasheet. We also tried Oracle version 6 and 7 and two types of ODBC
>>drivers but same happened. Then we tried to use Visual Basic via ODBC and
>>that worked until we installed Microsoft Jet Database Engine version 2.0
>>/Visual Basic version 3.0 Compatibility Layer. So it looks like the error
>>is in the Jet Layer 2.0.
>This has to be one of the strangest things I have ever heard. Just the number 44?
>How about some specifics - what datatype is the field defined as in Oracle? I know that Oracle has field types that offer higher specificty than is available in Access (tinyint, for example, has no equal in Access).
>And does this happen in a brand new test Oracle DB?
>I would focus in on the data types of the fields, and do some testing in a new DB with different datatypes, and determine which one is causing the 44=46 problem.
>Then call your Solution provider and find out why.
>Pete
Jim Kennedy Received on Sun Mar 19 1995 - 10:36:13 CET