ODBC connection producing different results

[sbetcher]

Progress 10.0B
SQL Server 2005
ODBC driver: DataDirect 4.20 32-BIT OpenEdge SQL v10.0B

SELECT contact_fname
, contact_lname
, contact_company
, contact_type_nbr
FROM Linked_Server..PUB.contact (SQL Server 2005)
FROM PUB.contact (Open Edge SQL Explorer)
FROM contact (Webspeed Scripting Lab)
WHERE contact_type_nbr = 'some_string'

I get what I am looking for when running the above SELECT statement in webspeed & SQL Exploer, however when I run it in SQL Server I do not get any data or errors. This was a test SELECT statement, because I have a larger query that includes a join to this table, which would return null for this particular string through SQL Server and others but not all.

The strange thing is if I run the larger query the ones that are NULL when running through SQL Server are populated when running it through webspeed and the ones that are populated when running through SQL are not shown when run through webspeed. Basically, I appear to get data either way but I do not seem to get all of it.

I do not believe this has anything to do with this but I do not have an additional port for an ODBC instance of this database, I do not appear to be having any problems connecting so I did not do it. I have separate ODBC instances for all of my 9.1D DBs, is this necessay for 10.0B.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Shannon

 

[sbetcher]

Well, thanks to all who looked at this, but I believe I have figured it out.

It appears that if I comment out contact_company, I do not have a problem. The issue with this field seems to be an overflow, since progress allows you to overwrite the default display size. Unfortunately, I did not receive any errors from SQL Server when running it and it would return some of the data just not all of it. I am guessing this is why I did had the same issue with progress sql explorer but the results again were not complete. This also explains why I was able to run it through Webspeed without a problem because it is not fetching the schema since it is not using an ODBC connection.

If there is a way to bypass the overflow, please let me know, I have to take all of the brokers down to up the size, which I can not do for a couple days. Yes I know I shouldn't need to with 10.0b but a modification was made to the db that now I can not make changes without taking down all of the brokers.

Shannon