[AccessD] Could somebody expand on this a little?

Jim Dettman jimdettman at earthlink.net
Mon Jan 30 11:14:16 CST 2006


Good catch!  That's what happens when your in a hurry and hit the spell
check to quick.....

Jim.

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Charlotte
Foust
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:38 AM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Could somebody expand on this a little?


>> demoralize data
LOL!  Is THAT what causes corruption??

Charlotte Foust


-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim Dettman
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:55 AM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Could somebody expand on this a little?


Steve,

<<What's your view?>>

  Andy's is writing to a wide audience; everything from a beginning
Access user to a seasoned developer and yet he seems to always take the
simplistic view when it comes to Access.  On the article I mentioned,
his stance was that it worked that way "out of the box" and "how am I
supposed to know all that"?

  Well that's what separates the men from the boys so to speak; you
either know a product and how to work with it or you don't.  But you
shouldn't ding the product because *you* don't understand how to use it
properly.  You do your homework up front like Susan does or don't bother
writing the article.

  Views are a tool like any other.  There are times when you want to use
them and times you don't.  Many Access users gravitate towards using
them because they are almost like an Access Query and it means you don't
need to learn T-SQL.  Access simply sees a view as a table, so you can
easily hide complex joins on the SQL side.

  However views will lead to performance problems in SQL as the database
scales up and can cause update problems.  Since your probably using SQL
server in the first place because the app is larger then what you can do
with JET, then it seems somewhat silly to use them for everything.

  They do however provide a nice way to make aggregate queries simpler,
demoralize data, rename columns, etc so they do have their uses.  But
you certainly don't want to be the farm on them.

  Personally my tendency is to not use them unless I have a good reason
for doing so.

Jim.




-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Steve Erbach
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:31 AM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Could somebody expand on this a little?


Jim,

Very interesting.  I noted that you and at least one other respondent
mentioned pass-through queries as good performance options.

What's puzzling to me, also, is a comment made to the article by Warren
( here's the link:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/awarren/linkingaccesstosqlser
ver.
asp
):

"Performance can really suck, depending on the application and the
bandwidth. It has to do with the way data is cached in Access and
becomes very apparent if you have large tables (>100,000 rows). However,
it doesn't justify pass-through queries (obsolutely NOTHING justifies
pass-through queries). Views (in SQL server) are your friend."

"NOTHING justifies pass-through queries."  I didn't challenge him on
that.  I should have, I suppose, but I know zip about pass-through
queries.  What's your view?
--
Regards,

Steve Erbach
Scientific Marketing
Neenah, WI
www.swerbach.com
Security Page: www.swerbach.com/security
http://TheTownCrank.blogspot.com



On 1/30/06, Jim Dettman <jimdettman at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Steve,
>
>   Andy doesn't seem to know much about Access.  You should have read
> his last Access article, which I and a few others commented on.
> Here's the
> link:
>
>
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/awarren/diggingintoaccessperf
orma
> nce.asp
>
> Jim.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Steve Erbach
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:53 AM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: [AccessD] Could somebody expand on this a little?
>
>
> Dear Group,
>
> I read a recent SQL Server Central article by a fellow named Andy
> Warren that dealt with connecting to a SQL Server database using an
> Access MDB/ODBC connection.  The article very nicely laid out the
> step-by-step process -- with screen shots -- to accomplish this.  What

> made me curious about the article was that the author never mentioned
> ADP's.
>
> So I joined the discussion forum for this topic and read a number of
> interesting replies pro and con for MDBs vs. ADPs, some that I'm
> unable, from only my own experience, to evaluate.
>
> Here's one of them.  The forum member started his message by saying
> that the article was good.  He went on to say:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Two problems I've come across:
--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com


--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com





More information about the AccessD mailing list