Text 3598, 147 rader
Skriven 2005-04-11 11:57:50 av Ellen K. (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 3558 av Rich (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: wrong data from oracle
==================================
From: Ellen K. <72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com>

The Oracle OLE DB provider thinks the user created by the Oracle DBA doesn't
have access to the database, and the Oracle DBA can't fix it. That's why
despite his original urging to use the Oracle product I am using MSDAORA.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:14:50 -0700, "Rich" <@> wrote in message
<4259c181$1@w3.nls.net>:

>   Again you see what you want to see and throw blame where you have
prejudged.  If you have complaints about drivers for oracle maybe you should
ask oracle to provide you with ODBC or OLEDB drivers that you can use with
their server.
>
>Rich
>
>  "Mike '/m'" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message
news:15fj519svfug1ued6e3cbnm6g23jgkd41p@4ax.com...
>
>  What I wanted to see was the correct data.  What I did not see was the
>  correct data.
>
>  Ten years and this bug has not been fixed.
>
>   /m
>
>
>
>  On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:49:14 -0700, "Rich" <@> wrote:
>
>  >   It just goes to show that you see what you want to see.  Had you
actually read the KB articles someone not prejudiced would see that that the
reason an unintended index may be selected is that ODBC does not return the
primary index and that the index must be guessed.  Nowhere does it claim that
wrong data is returned.
>  >
>  >Rich
>  >
>  >  "Mike '/m'" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message
news:6e8j51t7a8r68aktqpe4q5aqhp7h6curd7@4ax.com...
>  >
>  >  btw, for more info:
>  >
>  >  SYMPTOMS
>  >  When you link (attach) a table from an ODBC data source, such as
>  >  Microsoft SQL Server or ORACLE, and that table contains more than one
>  >  unique index, Microsoft Access may select the wrong index as the primary
>  >  key.
>  >
>  >  http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;292047
>  >
>  >  http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;169777
>  >
>  >  Notice the "This behavior is by design." under the Status category of
>  >  the second link.
>  >
>  >  The existence of this problem, and Microsoft's lack of interest in
>  >  resolving it, was noticed at the CEO and CFO level in my company.  I
>  >  suspect that such a cavalier attitude by Microsoft towards the validity
>  >  of the results that MS Access provides will not be A [long-term] Good
>  >  Thing for Microsoft at my company.
>  >
>  >  The question I cannot understand is how can Microsft leave such a known
>  >  and critical bug unfixed for over ten years?
>  >
>  >   /m
>  >
>  >  On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:42:55 -0700, Ellen K.
>  >  <72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> wrote:
>  >
>  >  >That's pretty gross all right.
>  >  >
>  >  >What versions of Access and Oracle?
>  >  >
>  >  >I used Access 97 against Oracle 8i at Kaiser without this problem, and
>  >  >know I didn't have it because I would periodically check the Oracle data
>  >  >(retrieved using Access) against the DB2 data on the mainframe
>  >  >(retrieved interactively) of which it was a clone.
>  >  >
>  >  >On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:10:42 -0400, Mike '/m' <mike@barkto.com> wrote in
>  >  >message <d5ji511u416i5k7mrgpcdrrk8h8b8ljbtb@4ax.com>:
>  >  >
>  >  >>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:51:59 -0400, "Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote:
>  >  >>
>  >  >>>"Adam Flinton" <adam@NOSPAM_softfab.com> wrote in message
>  >  >>>news:4258f782$1@w3.nls.net...
>  >  >>>
>  >  >>>> Anyway....the point that was made then was along the lines of that's
it
>  >  >>>> for upgrades of office coz quite frankly the users have everything
they
>  >  >>>> need now
>  >  >>>
>  >  >>>I don't think MS realizes yet what it was that powered that growth
surge
>  >  >>>they had in the 90's.
>  >  >>>
>  >  >>>[snip]
>  >  >>>
>  >  >>>As for Office, we never used it. We went with Works because our users
simply
>  >  >>>don't have the skills to require more than that. We've got maybe 4
copies of
>  >  >>>Office  but only so we can convert files we get from customers, and we
>  >  >>>convert those to paper <g>.
>  >  >>>
>  >  >>>When I order new computers, I order them without hard drives as a way
to
>  >  >>>insure that I'm not going to pay for any new copies of an OS I'm not
going
>  >  >>>to be using. (well except for laptops)
>  >  >>
>  >  >>We use MS Office across the board where I work.  Unfortunately, MS
>  >  >>Access is becoming entrenched as well.  That is frightening because of
>  >  >>all the problems it has, especially the one we found last week.  MS
>  >  >>Access seems to return "unexpected results" when used with an ODBC
>  >  >>connection in some instances.  We had production and accounting people
>  >  >>making customer-affecting decisions based upon the bad data that MS
>  >  >>Access was returning.  The Software Engineer (one of the most senior on
>  >  >>the team) wrote this in his status report:
>  >  >>
>  >  >>===
>  >  >>Worked with [names of users and other Software Engineers deleted to
>  >  >>protect the innocent] to design and implement a work-around for a
>  >  >>stunningly stupid bug in Microsoft Access.  When Access is used to
>  >  >>view/update an Oracle table, it sometimes fetches the wrong rows.
There
>  >  >>is no error or warning.  The bad data could easily be accepted and used
>  >  >>in producing a sample, updating panelist accounts, or whatever the user
>  >  >>is doing.... This bug has existed for over ten years, and is documented
>  >  >>on Microsoft's web site.  They apparently have no interest in fixing
>  >  >>it....
>  >  >>===
>  >  >>
>  >  >>For that particular Software Engineer to use the phrase "stunningly
>  >  >>stupid bug" (he bolded and italicized it) in his status report is
>  >  >>amazing.  He is usually (nearly always) very low-key.  *Very* low key.
>  >  >>
>  >  >>
>  >  >> /m
>  >  >>
>  >  >>
>  >  >>
>  >  >>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)