Boogie Loogie
boogieloogie at gmail.com
Sat Sep 25 17:14:19 CDT 2010
<delurk> I use .net and SQL Server / SQL Server Express for all database apps. I develop Windows Mobile apps and then process the .sdf on the desktop. I would have stayed with Access but the day Micro$oft stop support for Pocket Access was the day I switched. They had a good thing going and then it was gone. For old apps that I wrote in Access I had to get clients to purchase KaioneSync to make up for the shortcomings in the latest versions of ActiveSync and Windows Mobile because they did not want the wheel reinvented. M$ steps forward were steps backwards for Mobile - Access develop IMO. :L </delurk> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:02 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 >