Take the 2-minute tour ×
Database Administrators Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for database professionals who wish to improve their database skills and learn from others in the community. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have a machine which have 2 SQLServer instances

  • WINXP-PRO\SQLSERVER2000 (SQL Server 2000)
  • WINXP-PRO\SQLEXPRESS (SQL Server 2005 Express Edition).

In \SQLEXPRESS, I have database wavinet2 and wavinet2_mapic. In \SQLSERVER2000, I create linked server to [IP_ADDRESS]\SQLEXPRESS, the linked server is created.

All tables have shown up except for database wavinet_mapic.

I provide the remote login using sa. I try to select and it cannot found the table.

Any hint what is causing this problem?

share|improve this question
    
What is the compatibility level set to on the 2005 instance databases? –  Mr.Brownstone Aug 14 '12 at 20:00
add comment

2 Answers

Could you post the error? Without the error, my first thought would be to check the permissions on the sa account for that table (ensuring the user has access to SELECT the table). Along the same lines, I would also check to see if the linked server has all appropriate permissions for that table too.

share|improve this answer
    
There are no Error message because the linked server is crated successfully. Except that I can't see tables from database wavinet_mapic. I login using the sa account (which means superuser in sql, CMIIW) but I'll take a look again with the permission –  Permana Jan 24 '12 at 2:47
add comment

My suspicion is that the table in question uses a feature that is only available in SQL Server 2005 and above and so that is why you cannot see it in your 2000 instance. This is similar to what happens when you try to open a SQL 2005 or above instance from Enterprise Manager - except you get a more descriptive error. If you desperately need to see this table in SQL 2000 remove the offending feature (if at all possible) from the table (it might just be a data type), if you cannot remove the feature then have a think about whether it is possible to have the link the opposite way around?

I hope this helps you.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.