| Alex - IntraLAN 2005-04-09, 8:23 pm |
| Hi all,
great post, good debate, I just want to add my opinion to the post. I
have been using access for years since Access v2, I have used all
combinations of front-end/back-end technologies and the conclusion I
have drawn is this. If you want a database of < 100mb in size the MDB
method works very well, as soon as you are in a large database > 200mb
100+ tables 100+ forms then adp style projects seem to be better as the
maximum underlying connections to a DB is 2048 and linked MDB/ODBC
tables require 2 connections for every table/combo box/and other table
style connections and ADP/SQL tables only require 1. I have only hit
this limitation 3 times in my 10+ years developing access applications,
but when I hit it with the MDB I have only one choice convert to an ADP
project. From a performance perspective I would say that DAO is
slightly faster using similar code/loops etc to ADO, but once the move
to ADP has been made then it is a shame if the application is not
optimised using stored procedures to run the main code loops that don't
require user input or progress to the screen whilst running, I see
performance increases of 10x+ using stored procedure over client side
code loops. At the end of the day it is horses for courses, small apps
+ small data MDB every time, big app + big data ADP/SQL every time. I
keep hearing of problems with ADP projects I have not had any major
problems with these and I have one site running an ADP (access
2000)/SQL7 application on 150+ terminals I have not had to fix or get
involved in anything for 4 years. The most important thing to me is db
design with as much of the program logic held in the database and not
the front end. A couple of thing that I have done to improve query
performance is
never use 'Select * from' and to trim the field length of long fields
if the results are going to a list box 'SELECT
Convert(char(30),rsC
ontacts.Name_Of_Solicitor)' and to add the
following to the end of those line 'FOR BROWSE' which seems to help
with locking on the server.
Just my thoughts.
Alex
Neil wrote:
> OK, thanks for clarifying what you were referring to. Still, that
would be
> handled on a per-machine basis, and this is something that changed in
the
> database (either SQL back end or front end MDB), since it happened
across
> the board, both locally and across the LAN.
>
> N
>
> "david epsom dot com dot au" < david@epsomdotcomdot
au> wrote in
message[color=darkre
d]
> news:OFQvvDwOFHA.1528@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
is only[color=darkred]
is, when[color=darkred]
option[color=darkred
]
record[color=darkred
]
or[color=darkred]
record[color=darkred
]
SQL[color=darkred]
help:[color=darkred]
ODBC,[color=darkred]
SQL[color=darkred]
Access[color=darkred
]
displayed[color=dark
red]
the[color=darkred]
it's[color=darkred]
eventually work[color=darkred]
records[color=darkre
d]
records[color=darkre
d]
brought in.[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
noted, this[color=darkred]
of a[color=darkred]
my[color=darkred]
form[color=darkred]
and the[color=darkred]
Recordset[color=dark
red]
the[color=darkred]
you[color=darkred]
until[color=darkred]
that mean[color=darkred]
level. And[color=darkred]
well as[color=darkred]
turned on.[color=darkred]
than[color=darkred]
|