nullifying value from FOR XML EXPLICIT

In this query (using T-SQL, don't know about SQLXML) hello becomes NULL and an error is returned...
select 2 as tag, null as parent
,null as [ffffff:eeeeeeeeeeeeeee!2!bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb !element]
,null as [ffffff:eeeeeeeeeeeeeee!2!cccccccccccccccccccccccc !element]
,null as [aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!19]
union all
select 19 as tag, 2 as parent
,null as [ffffff:eeeeeeeeeeeeeee!2!bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb !element]
,null as [ffffff:eeeeeeeeeeeeeee!2!cccccccccccccccccccccccc !element]
,'hello' as [aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!19]
for xml explicit
But change just about anything (make it xml auto, add or remove a few chars, change the 2 to a 12 or the 19 to either a 9 or a 190...) and it will work fine.
Anyone know what gives? Seems to be related to string lengths... Our workaround is to start tag ID's at >100 but does that mean some other combination will flake out?
Cheers...
John
Try changing alias [aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!19] to
[aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!19!] - there's a known bug in FOR XML EXPLICIT
code.
Best regards,
Eugene
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"John Nowak" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:08168845-CD3E-47DD-A4A9-686AF2B2525F@.microsoft.com...
> In this query (using T-SQL, don't know about SQLXML) hello becomes NULL
and an error is returned...
> select 2 as tag, null as parent
> ,null as [ffffff:eeeeeeeeeeeeeee!2!bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb !element]
> ,null as [ffffff:eeeeeeeeeeeeeee!2!cccccccccccccccccccccccc !element]
> ,null as [aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!19]
> union all
> select 19 as tag, 2 as parent
> ,null as [ffffff:eeeeeeeeeeeeeee!2!bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb !element]
> ,null as [ffffff:eeeeeeeeeeeeeee!2!cccccccccccccccccccccccc !element]
> ,'hello' as [aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!19]
> for xml explicit
> But change just about anything (make it xml auto, add or remove a few
chars, change the 2 to a 12 or the 19 to either a 9 or a 190...) and it
will work fine.
> Anyone know what gives? Seems to be related to string lengths... Our
workaround is to start tag ID's at >100 but does that mean some other
combination will flake out?
> Cheers...
> John