By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,160 Members | 1,010 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,160 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Access 2003 Returns Different Recordset than 97

P: n/a
Good afternoon.

I have recently converted an Access 97 application to Access 2003. The
conversion went rather smoothly. However I am getting different
results from the same exact query. I can debug.print the sql string
and copy and paste it into 97 and 2003 query designer and get
different results.

I have seen the results come back the same if I edit the SQL in 2003
by adding a space or somethig but not changing the criteria.

Has anyone else seen this problem? I've applied Jet 4.0 SP8 but
nothing has changed. Has Microsoft changed the way SQL is optimized
from VBA to Jet or something?

Any help will be appreciated...

Taylor
Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
3 Replies


P: n/a
On 27 Apr 2004 13:43:33 -0700, tg*******@lgdpc.com (Taylor) wrote:

I have noticed that the concept of Null has shifted over time, mostly
for the better (=stricter).
Not much you can do about this. As always, write your SQL so the
expected rows are returned.

-Tom.
Good afternoon.

I have recently converted an Access 97 application to Access 2003. The
conversion went rather smoothly. However I am getting different
results from the same exact query. I can debug.print the sql string
and copy and paste it into 97 and 2003 query designer and get
different results.

I have seen the results come back the same if I edit the SQL in 2003
by adding a space or somethig but not changing the criteria.

Has anyone else seen this problem? I've applied Jet 4.0 SP8 but
nothing has changed. Has Microsoft changed the way SQL is optimized
from VBA to Jet or something?

Any help will be appreciated...

Taylor


Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
Thanks.

That was the problem. I was using [field] = Null rather than IsNull.

Taylor
Tom van Stiphout <to*****@no.spam.cox.net> wrote in message news:<t3********************************@4ax.com>. ..
On 27 Apr 2004 13:43:33 -0700, tg*******@lgdpc.com (Taylor) wrote:

I have noticed that the concept of Null has shifted over time, mostly
for the better (=stricter).
Not much you can do about this. As always, write your SQL so the
expected rows are returned.

-Tom.
Good afternoon.

I have recently converted an Access 97 application to Access 2003. The
conversion went rather smoothly. However I am getting different
results from the same exact query. I can debug.print the sql string
and copy and paste it into 97 and 2003 query designer and get
different results.

I have seen the results come back the same if I edit the SQL in 2003
by adding a space or somethig but not changing the criteria.

Has anyone else seen this problem? I've applied Jet 4.0 SP8 but
nothing has changed. Has Microsoft changed the way SQL is optimized
from VBA to Jet or something?

Any help will be appreciated...

Taylor

Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
tg*******@lgdpc.com (Taylor) wrote in
news:e0**************************@posting.google.c om:
That was the problem. I was using [field] = Null rather than
IsNull.


I have no versions of Access in which that worked (going back to
Access 2).

Is this SQL being run against non-Jet data?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.