empete2000_at_yahoo.com (Pete's) wrote in message news:<6724a51f.0407120428.4469845e_at_posting.google.com>...
> rooty_hill2002_at_yahoo.com.au (Gary) wrote in message news:<171bd226.0407112252.6d16b42_at_posting.google.com>...
> > All,
> >
> > This was from one of my programmers. She claimed one of her statements
> > was working in system testing region, but after being promoted to user
> > acceptance testing region it stopped working, so it became mu problem.
> >
> > She uses the following statement to simply retrieve one field
> > "cat_type_name" from table "loan_product":
> >
> > SELECT cat_type_name FROM loan_product
> > WHERE acct_type = 1028
> > AND int_cat = 003
> >
> > Unfortunately, both acct_type and int_cat are defined as CHAR(4) and
> > NOT NULL. So apparently, this statement should not work at all.
> > However, in system testing region it DID work. I rejected to look any
> > further unless she change the statement to:
> > SELECT cat_type_name FROM loan_product
> > WHERE acct_type = '1028'
> > AND int_cat ='0003'
> >
> > She did and her application is working happily in user testing region
> > now. However, I still can't answer the question why it worked in
> > system testing region but doesn't work in user acceptance region. I
> > compared the table in two regions, couldn't find any difference. Looks
> > like the implicit casting behaves differently in these two databases.
> >
> > Any idea about what I should check to find out the reason.
> >
> > Sorry guys, I am a newbie.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Gary
>
>
> DB versions the same? Same patchsets applied? Are the two databases
> on the same server and OS version?
>
> Pete's
Pete, they are in same version 9.2 with same patchsets applied and
they are actually on the same server of HP UX-11.
Received on Mon Jul 12 2004 - 18:12:04 CDT
