Rocky Smolin
rockysmolin at bchacc.com
Mon Sep 13 14:52:34 CDT 2010
" I'm sure I will be corrected if I have miss-stated something " Even if you haven't...:) R -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Gary Kjos Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 12:32 PM To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: Re: [AccessD] The Famous Bound/Unbound Debate Hi Brad, Bound refers to using a record set, possibly a table or maybe a query as the record source for an Access Form. This has the advantage of letting Access take care of a lot of functionality. Unbound refers to not having a record source for the form and then using code behind the form to populate the various controls on the form. Doing this requires some amount of work to populate those fields, detect changes to them the user might make and then making the corresponding update to the records in the data tables. If you are using Access built in Jet Database as the data storage for the application and you don't have that many rows in your tables, most would agree that bound is the way to go. But maybe not ;-) If you use another database engine to store the data, perhaps SQL Server, it could be argued that it's much better to only retrieve the individual records you are wanting to display and or change and so doing that with code and then populating the controls on the form might be a better way to go. For many of us, it is a matter of preference in doing it one way or the other. Sometimes it might be better to do it one way and sometimes it might be better to do it the other way. I think that is the gist of it. I'm sure I will be corrected if I have miss-stated something or missed any key points. Another heated past debate was over the use of Natural Keys verses Surrogate Keys. A Surrogate key would be something like an Autonumber field, randomly or sequentially assigned by the database engine. A Natural Key would be something like a Social Security Number. In my opinion Natural Keys are similar to the use of GO TO in COBOL programs. There may be a place for them occasionally but generally they should be avoided. In my opinion. A system assigned unique key that identifies the record allows the field that would have been used as the key to be changed in the event that something happens to make that necessary. Perhaps a data entry error? Whatever. If you have other tables joined to that record on that natural key you are STUCK without doing some cascading update or something. GK On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Brad Marks <BradM at blackforestltd.com> wrote: > All, > > Compared to most of you, I am a relative newcomer to the world of > Access. > > Over the past few months, I have noticed a number of references to the > Bound/Unbound debate. It sounds like this was a really hotly > contested issue at one time and that now people almost joke about it. > > For us newcomers, it would be nice if someone could explain this issue > at a high level and perhaps spell out the major pros and cons of each > side of the debate. > > It is not my intent to start a Web-war, I would just like to better > understand what is going on here. > > Thanks, > Brad > > -----Original Message----- > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Drew Wutka > Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 1:53 PM > To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > Subject: Re: [AccessD] SQL Server Express - true skinny > > Exactly. Which is part of the premise of the bound/unbound debate. > With unbound forms, where data is written in a split second chunk, the > stability of much higher user volume goes up tremendously! > > Drew > > -----Original Message----- > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim Dettman > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 2:46 PM > To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' > Subject: Re: [AccessD] SQL Server Express - true skinny > > Dan, > > That is more or less true, but the real bottle neck with a JET based > DB has never been .LDB file operations. > > With JET, all processing is on the client side. The server acts as > nothing more then a file share. > > The trick with keeping a connection open to the BE avoids the > repeated closing/opening of the LDB and DB files and all the > associated overhead with removing/adding an active user under JET. > Some apps benefit from that, other not because they already maintain a > connection one way or another. > The problem can be further compounded if the server has OPLOCKS on > (which allows client side caching of files). JET doesn't need this as > the cache is already on the client side. So it's simply a wasted > effort on the servers part. And by default, OPLOCKs is enabled on > Windows servers. > > The real restriction of JET is just one of stability. With no server > side process to perform a rollback if a disconnect occurs, anytime > that happens in the middle of write operations your fair game for > corruption. So by the time you get past 30 or 40 stations, it's just > hard to keep the environment stable. > > To prove that point, you can easily run a read-only/reporting JET > based app with 200+ users without issues. > > It's not an issue of performance, but one of stability. > > Jim. > The information contained in this transmission is intended only for > the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain II-VI > Proprietary and/or II-VI Business Sensitive material. If you are not > the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and > destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. > You are notified that any review, retransmission, copying, disclosure, > dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance > upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended > recipient is prohibited. > > > -- > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by > MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. > > > -- > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > -- Gary Kjos garykjos at gmail.com -- AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com