Re: data type conversion in 10g

Are table data the same?

The conversion is actually goes the over way around - to_number(test1)=88.

Should be the same on both versions.

On 7/3/07, David Boyd <davidb158_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> We have Oracle 10.2.0.3. There is one field, test1 that is definite as
> char(2). When we use 'where test1<88', it works fine in 9i, but we get
> 'ORA-01722 invalid number' error in 10g. Once I add single quotes around
> 88, the error is gone. I know the best practice is not to use implicit
> conversion. Just wonder why it works in 9i, but not in 10g, more
> restriction in 10g or if there is any change in 10g that causes the error
> tracked?
> ________________________________
> See what you're getting into…before you go there. Check it out!

-- 
Alexander Fatkulin
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l