Re: ODBC and long text fields

Larry Garfield wrote: > On Sunday 07 January 2007 8:26 pm, Jochem Maas wrote: > ... >> >> with regard to wanting results returned in a 'named' fashion, does the new >> setup still not allow use of odbc_fetch_array() instead of >> odbc_fetch_row()? not that I see any logic in that solving the issue, again >> it might be worth trying to see if it does. > > Honestly I've not tried. (I also don't have the wrapper code in front of me > at the moment. <g>) That could be a nice thing to simplify for performance, > but I suspect that if the problem is with odbc_fetch_row() then > odbc_fetch_array() will have the same bug. quite likely - but you never know until you give it a shot - weirder things have happened :-) > >> I don't know much about MSSQL, or whether 'text' is an actual field type, >> but maybe this function offers a wayout?: >> >> http://php.net/manual/en/function.odbc-binmode.php > > No, that looks like it's for binary data. "Text" is a MS SQL field for > huge-ass text fields, essentially similar to the MySQL field of the same name > (at least at an API level). We also tried playing with odbc_longreadlen() > and setting MS SQL's TEXTSIZE and TEXTLENGTH parameters to no avail. ah I see; double drat! > >> are the php versions on the 2 systems you mention exactly the same? (you >> mention 5.1 and 5.1.6) this could be a clue to the problem. > > It's either both 5.1.6 or 5.1.6 live and 5.1.4 devel. (I don't recall what > our exact version is atm.) We're in the process of upgrading our server > soon, and I'm not sure what it will have. Probably 5.2, just to keep life > interesting. :-) I would get the systems running exactly the same version just to rule out that as a possible source of the problem. > >> lastly I don't suppose that it possible for you to switch to using the >> MSSQL specific php extension? [http://php.net/mssql] it might offer a >> better/faster connection to the MSSQL server as well as making the issue go >> away. > > I don't believe the client allows direct MSSQL connections. Besides, the > MSSQL functions still require an ODBC driver underneath, I didn't know that. > so if the problem is > with the ODBC driver then that won't change anything. if what you say is true then it it would be a great way of determining if the it is the ODBC driver that's the problem, and if using MSSQL extension make the problem dissapear then you have a solution (given that it has to use an ODBC driver underneath, you will still be conforming to the client's requirements by not connecting directly). sorry I couldn't be of more help/ >