[AccessD] SQL vs DAO -- rattling cages

I'm not really concerned about bloat at this point -- I'm just interested in
opinions about which performs faster: DAO or SQL.

Susan H.


> Speaking MDB's, and SQL as in SQL code, then you're tapping the JET engine
> in all 3 cases be it by query or 2 diffrent forms of code.  When access an
> MDB via code, DAO is always faster, but ADO is more suitable if you will
> also be tapping into other data stores such as SQL Server or Oracle.  In
> reguards to database bloat, an MDB will bloat because of the required
> database space to store a temporary file be it sql or code.
>
> IF you mean SQL as in SQL Server, then the advantages are many, but one
that
> comes to mind is the tempdb which is very useful because it holds all the
> data temorarily when using groupby's or order by's in your SQL code, of
> course you can't access this via DAO unless of course you have the table
> linked to a MDB.
>
> -Francisco
> http://rcm.netfirms.com
>
> On Monday, March 31, 2003 9:26 AM [GMT-8],
> Susan Harkins <harkins at iglou.com> wrote:
>
> : Charlotte and I are having a brief discussion off list of how SQL can
> : solve some bloat problems. Now, I find SQL superior to DAO/ADO almost
> : everytime and would rather work in SQL if given the choice. However,
> : I have seen discussions about performance right here on this list --
> : do any of you think DAO/ADO performs faster than SQL? If so, can you
> : provide some statistics?
> :
> : SUsan H.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>