by Lemming <thiswillbounce@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Jul 28, 2005 at 01:15 AM
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 08:57:58 -0400, "Woody Rao"
<nvwoody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>stefan
>
>thanks for writing back!. there definitely are rows there.
>so it's got to be some other setting on those PC's
>while other pc's are ok.
>woody
SQL can be a slippery beast; are you certain the SQL query is
identical on all the client PCs? Are they all connecting to the same
database? If not, are you certain the two (or more) databases contain
the same data - at least where this particular query is concerned?
If you post the query you are having trouble with, we might be able to
help you better.
BTW Please don't top-post, it makes it difficult to reply sensibly.
>"Stefan Rybacki" <stefan.rybacki@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:3j060rFmlhs1U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Woody Rao wrote:
>>> Can anyone tell me why some PC's return the actual number of rows that
>>> are affected by the last SQL statement and other PC's return 0? This
is
>>> SQL Server 2000.
>>>
>>> TIA
>>> Woody
>> Maybe in a query with affected rows 0 no rows have been affected?
>>
>> Regards
>> Stefan
Lemming
--
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.
