• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 1124
  • Last Modified:

Linked table problem between Access 2010 64bit and SQL server 2012

I have the same 30 tables on SQL Server 2012 and also on SQL Server 2000. I first setup an ODBC connection to the SQL 2000 and I can open all the tables in Access.
When I change the ODBC connection to the SQL 2012 server I an unable to open 4 of the tables.  The remaining 26 open fine.  When I attempt to open any of these 4 tables I get a popup window stating:
"The field is too small to accept the amount of data you attempted to add.  Try inserting or pasting less data."

I even created a query and tried to pull just the top 100 records from that linked table and got the same error.  Even tried to query just one column (non-indexed) and got the same error.
Some of my tables have 900,000 records and they work fine.
Both Access 2010 and SQL Server 2012 are on the same Server 2008 R2 box.
0
djpierce54
Asked:
djpierce54
  • 6
  • 3
  • 3
  • +1
2 Solutions
 
Scott McDaniel (Microsoft Access MVP - EE MVE )Infotrakker SoftwareCommented:
I'm curious if something is unique about those 4 tables - for example, do they have BLOB fields, or something of that nature?

Also, why use Access 64 bit? There's no real benefit, and it's definitely still "in the works".
0
 
djpierce54Author Commented:
There is nothing different about those four tables.
They all just have combinations of nvarchar, float and integer columns.
No memos or blobs.  I already had Excel 64bit so I had no choice but to install 64bit version.
Otherwise I have to uninstall both and install as 32bit.
0
 
Armen Stein - Microsoft Access MVP since 2006Commented:
Check your driver, either in your DSN or in your connection string if you are DSN-less.  If it was working before with SQL 2000, you may still be using the old {SQL Server} driver.  Instead, try {SQL Server Native Client 10.0} or {SQL Server Native Client 11.0} to see if that helps.
0
Concerto's Cloud Advisory Services

Want to avoid the missteps to gaining all the benefits of the cloud? Learn more about the different assessment options from our Cloud Advisory team.

 
djpierce54Author Commented:
I am using DSN connections and was just using the SQL Server standard driver. I created a new DSN using the Native Client 11.0 and I got the same results. I can change to the DSN pointing to my SQL server 2000 server and the table is fine.  That DSN connection also uses the same driver - SQL Standard driver as the sql server 2012 connection .
0
 
Boyd (HiTechCoach) Trimmell, Microsoft Access MVPCommented:
Have you tried deleting and recreating the linked tables with the DSN using the Native Client 11.0?
0
 
djpierce54Author Commented:
Yes I have tried that with same results.  I tried with both the V11 and the std SQL server driver - same problem. What I have found is that these tables have two timestamp fields in each table.  Apparently when you copy the table from a 2000 Server to a 2012 SQL server it will not allow two timestamps in the same table. I wonder if that rule apples in the ODBC driver?  You would think the ODBC error message would explain this more clearly.  I do not know.  I know when I put the table on the 2012 server with only one timestamp field then the linked table in Access 2010 works just fine.
Not sure if that is the answer but I guess it is a workaround. As long as you do not need both Timestamps on the copied table.  Probably a workaround somewhere out there but I can live with this restriction.
0
 
Armen Stein - Microsoft Access MVP since 2006Commented:
Since each Timestamp is a meaningless unique value, I can't think of any reason to have two of them.  And the reason that ODBC cares is that it uses the Timestamp field (if present) to check for concurrency, so I imagine that having two of them would confuse it.
0
 
djpierce54Author Commented:
Well it was a view in the original SQL 2000 database and this view combined two tables, each had it's own timestamp field so the view included both.
I need to determine if either timestamp field is needed in the new SQL 2012 database view as the interface software that connects to the SQL 2000 DB is not going to be used in the SQL 2012 interface.
0
 
Armen Stein - Microsoft Access MVP since 2006Commented:
If you would like a quick overview of whether to use Timestamp (now RowVersion), check out my Best of Both Worlds slide deck at JStreettech.com/downloads.
0
 
djpierce54Author Commented:
I've requested that this question be deleted for the following reason:

Resolved the problem on my own
0
 
Boyd (HiTechCoach) Trimmell, Microsoft Access MVPCommented:
djpierce54,

Would you mind sharing your solution so other may benefit?

Thank  you for supporting Experts Exchange by posting your solution.
0
 
djpierce54Author Commented:
The solution was that the SQL 2000 view was composed of two tables and each table had it's own timestamp column.  For some reason the view was created with both timestamps.
It was determined that you cannot have two timestamps in a table or view in SQL Server 2012 as I was unable to copy that view into a table on the sql 2012.  I removed one of the timestamps from the view definition and then I was able to copy to a table on sql 2012.  It appears that Access 2010 follows the same rules.  I just had to change the view to only accept one of the timestamps and Access had no problem reading the data.  When the view had both timestamps then Access was unable to read the data and put up the error message = "The field is too small to accept the amount of data you attempted to add.  Try inserting or pasting less data."
0
 
Boyd (HiTechCoach) Trimmell, Microsoft Access MVPCommented:
Thanks for sharing your solution. I am sure others will benefit.

Access Make Table queries have a similar issue with multiple autonumber columns.

Takaway:
A table can  have only one RowVersion (timestamp) column. If you save a view as a table the resulting table can only have a single RowVersion (timestamp) column.

Solution:
I have had a similar issue with Access and a make table query pulling data from several tables. If you include two or more   autonumber data type columns you will get an error.  The way I have got around this in Access is to use the VAL() function on the additional autonumber columns. This will change to the data type to Long for the additional autonumber columns. This will allow the table to be created since there is only one autonumber data type columns.

If you really need all the data for the multiple RowVersion columns you could convert the additional ones to Binary(8) before saving the table. This would allow the new table to be created because it only has a single column of type RowVersion.
0

Featured Post

VIDEO: THE CONCERTO CLOUD FOR HEALTHCARE

Modern healthcare requires a modern cloud. View this brief video to understand how the Concerto Cloud for Healthcare can help your organization.

  • 6
  • 3
  • 3
  • +1
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now