FLJerseyBoy
Registered User.
- Local time
- Yesterday, 16:11
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2018
- Messages
- 18
Hello all -- first time this has ever happened to me:
I have an Access 2016 front end using data from a SQL Server back end. In Access, I created a passththrough query which returned 859 records. This was one record fewer than expected. So I copied the SQL code to a real SQL Server view within the SQL Server database; it returned the correct 860 records, as I expected given the various joins and conditions.
I've done a character-by-character comparison of the two SQL strings; they are identical. (Stripped out all embedded white space just to be sure.)
Has this ever happened to anyone here before?
Btw, the reason I'm not just linking to the SQL server view instead of using the passthrough: the passthrough query's SQL code is actually created on-the-fly based on conditions present at the moment. Just using the regular Access query engine rather than a passthrough query produces unacceptable performance.
Thanks for any brainstorms. It's a stumper to me!
P.S. Not pasting/uploading the SQL here because the query is over 5K characters long, referencing many tables and other views. I'm not worried about the query per se, since there's no difference between the two versions of code -- just can't figure out why there'd be a difference in the results returned.
I have an Access 2016 front end using data from a SQL Server back end. In Access, I created a passththrough query which returned 859 records. This was one record fewer than expected. So I copied the SQL code to a real SQL Server view within the SQL Server database; it returned the correct 860 records, as I expected given the various joins and conditions.
I've done a character-by-character comparison of the two SQL strings; they are identical. (Stripped out all embedded white space just to be sure.)
Has this ever happened to anyone here before?
Btw, the reason I'm not just linking to the SQL server view instead of using the passthrough: the passthrough query's SQL code is actually created on-the-fly based on conditions present at the moment. Just using the regular Access query engine rather than a passthrough query produces unacceptable performance.
Thanks for any brainstorms. It's a stumper to me!
P.S. Not pasting/uploading the SQL here because the query is over 5K characters long, referencing many tables and other views. I'm not worried about the query per se, since there's no difference between the two versions of code -- just can't figure out why there'd be a difference in the results returned.