My webhost is driving me batty. After migrating my control panel unexpectedly to Plesk, they are now incapable of giving me more than one ftp user with access to my web controls. I need to have the control panel login for myself with full control and a web developer login with limited control. Surely this is not that unusual a situation? And anyway, it used to work just fine.
But she was naked! And all... articulate!
Mal ,'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
Buffistechnology 3: "Press Some Buttons, See What Happens."
Got a question about technology? Ask it here. Discussion of hardware, software, TiVos, multi-region DVDs, Windows, Macs, LINUX, hand-helds, iPods, anything tech related. Better than any helpdesk!
Liese S. - May 04, 2007 6:50:08 am PDT #1470 of 25496
"Faded like the lilac, he thought."
§ ita § - May 04, 2007 7:53:20 am PDT #1471 of 25496
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Someone help me see what's right in front of my face. I'm running this query:
SELECT colA, colB, * FROM TableA WHERE colAcolB;
and it returns me nothing. However, the following queries do not return the same number of results:
SELECT colA, colB, * FROM TableA;
and
SELECT colA, colB, * FROM TableA WHERE colA=colB;
I'm running Access 2003 on an Access 2000 database. All columns are text.
The first one of the two returns 4K+ more records than the second.
What am I missing? The underlying table is a linked table I can't play with structurally.
Gudanov - May 04, 2007 8:00:00 am PDT #1472 of 25496
Coding and Sleeping
I don't understand the question.
Why wouldn't SELECT colA, colB, * FROM TableA return more rows than SELECT colA, colB, * FROM TableA WHERE colA=colB? What is the issue?
hippocampus - May 04, 2007 8:03:36 am PDT #1473 of 25496
not your mom's socks.
Just guessing/hoping that Access query structure isn't totally kinked - wouldn't:
SELECT colA, colB, * FROM TableA;
Return everything from each column
and
SELECT colA, colB, * FROM TableA WHERE colA=colB;
Return matches?
What are you trying to query?
§ ita § - May 04, 2007 8:08:14 am PDT #1474 of 25496
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Why wouldn't SELECT colA, colB, * FROM TableA return more rows than SELECT colA, colB, * FROM TableA WHERE colA=colB?
If there are no rows where colAcolB (as implied by the first query returning nothing), then those two queries should return the same results, yes?
My big problem is that I know records satisfy the very first query. I can see them. I just can't work out how to return only those.
Oh! Right! The board ate my <> in the first query. It should read
SELECT colA, colB, * FROM TableA WHERE colA<>colB;
Gudanov - May 04, 2007 8:13:14 am PDT #1475 of 25496
Coding and Sleeping
That makes sense now.
How about SELECT colA, colB, * FROM TableA WHERE NOT(colA=colB)?
§ ita § - May 04, 2007 8:16:21 am PDT #1476 of 25496
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
How about SELECT colA, colB, * FROM TableA WHERE NOT(colA=colB)?
Empty set, I'm afraid.
Am I making an error in translation or syntax? I do hate Access, but this is extra frustrating.
Liese S. - May 04, 2007 8:16:53 am PDT #1477 of 25496
"Faded like the lilac, he thought."
Are there null values involved frelling things up somehow?
DXMachina - May 04, 2007 8:25:29 am PDT #1478 of 25496
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Null values would screw up
SELECT colA, colB, * FROM TableA WHERE colA=colB
too though, no?
eta: Apparently not...
§ ita § - May 04, 2007 8:26:40 am PDT #1479 of 25496
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Liese, that's exactly it!
I find my 4K+ records quite precisely with an Is Null criterion.
Access Help says:
If Null values exist in a field, they can affect the query's results
Well, of course they're supposed to affect the results. Values in fields do that. It's what queries are to reflect.
However, and I can't swear to it, MySQL doesn't work that way, I think. And Access Help doesn't say anything on that, the most obvious help page so far on which to mention it, that it would mess with comparison expressions.
Logic syntax wise, !(a=b) == a!=b, right?