Re: Upgrading Oracle ODBC 10.1.0.2.0

Comments embedded.
On Dec 31, 8:41 am, valigula <valig..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Upgrading a database  from Oracle 9i to 10g.
> I have encountered a problem with the ODBC 10.1.0.2.0 driver, it
> transforms the 21 numeric digits from a PK column to a scientific
> format.

Which should be nothing more than a display issue. Try setting numwidth to a value greater than the largest exponent displayed:

SQL> select empno, ename, bizarre_num
  2 from emp;

     EMPNO ENAME BIZARRE_NUM
---------- ---------- -----------

      7369 SMITH       4.3442E+10
      7499 ALLEN       8.9976E+10
      7521 WARD        7.0707E+10
      7566 JONES       1.7030E+11
      7654 MARTIN      7.3230E+10
      7698 BLAKE       1.6889E+11
      7782 CLARK       1.4837E+11
      7788 SCOTT       1.8196E+11
      7839 KING        3.0725E+11
      7844 TURNER      9.2293E+10
      7876 ADAMS       6.8235E+10

     EMPNO ENAME      BIZARRE_NUM
---------- ---------- -----------
      7900 JAMES       5.9290E+10
      7902 FORD        1.8732E+11
      7934 MILLER      8.1833E+10

14 rows selected.

The largest exponent displayed is 11, so set the numwidth to 12:

SQL> set numwidth 12

Run the query again:

SQL> /        EMPNO ENAME BIZARRE_NUM
------------ ---------- ------------

        7369 SMITH       43441728800
        7499 ALLEN       89976001600
        7521 WARD        70706801250
        7566 JONES      170301959100
        7654 MARTIN      73229645000
        7698 BLAKE      168888731400
        7782 CLARK      148370833800
        7788 SCOTT      181958832000
        7839 KING       307249605000
        7844 TURNER      92292504000
        7876 ADAMS       68234513600

       EMPNO ENAME       BIZARRE_NUM
------------ ---------- ------------
        7900 JAMES       59289500000
        7902 FORD       187324812000
        7934 MILLER      81832862800

14 rows selected.

SQL> Exponential notation is gone, and the numeric values haven't changed as the display format doesn't change what is stored in the table.

> Has anyone found this problem?, is any other work around but changing
> the  numer to varchar ?
>
> Thanks in advance

David Fitzjarrell Received on Mon Dec 31 2007 - 09:29:16 CST