My experience (my personal experience limited only to me) with ODBC
tables and Access has consistently been that table fields with more than
255 chars get truncated in Access (not in the sql server table). So I
can either only read 255 chars at most for a given record that contains
more than 255 chars or I get an error for that record. That has been my
personal experience without researching any further. It sounded like
the individual posting here originally was having the same problem as I
had with ODBC. I offered the suggestion that I did.
And yes, perhaps Access can tweak data that it passes to excel, but not
if you pass it with ADO. If you use ADO -- wysiwyg between Access data
and the same data in Excel. TransferSpreadsheet may tweak stuff. Thus,
I don't use TransferSpreadsheet. But since the issue at hand was the
source data resides in the Sql Server and needs to end up in Excel --
the suggestion I then offered was to bypass Access altogether since that
is where the problem existed. The goal here is to not re-invent the
wheel (with all kinds of sphaghetti code -- I ran out of tomato sauce
from doing that too many times) - and honestly, using ADO between Access
and Excel is more hassle than I care for anymore - although it is
reliable and good performance (now I just use a simple .Net app I put
together which tansfers data from any datasource to Excel very easily)
Actually, I wrote a custom .Net dll to perform this data transfer from
Access to Excel seamlessly, but Access would not allow a data read from
the .Net dll (although Excel does allow the same .Net dll to read the
data from Access). I was told that it was some security issue with
Access - my guess is that the data read just isn't supported in Access
at this time for the .Net dll (maybe it would work with Access 2007 - I
am using Acc2003). Anyway, I would have offered this suggestion, but
slightly out of scope for this NG.
Bottom line, I try to steer myself (and others) from having to re-invent
the wheel (since I have been there so many times in the past). Perhaps
the problem you note with me is not in misleading people, but in how I
convey my ideas. Apparently, we dont all think alike. But I will heed
your suggestion and try to focus more on keeping it simple (I will try.)
Rich
*** Sent via Developersdex
http://www.developersdex.com ***