[AccessD] Fastest Way

I would delete from the files to be imported and then import the batch as incoming.

Ciao Jürgen Welz Edmonton, Alberta jwelz at hotmail.com


 
> From: rockysmolin at bchacc.com
> To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:33:10 -0800
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Fastest Way
> 
> Actually don't want to delete and import - just bypass the incoming records
> that are already in the table.
> 
> R 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jurgen Welz
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 9:52 AM
> To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Fastest Way
> 
> 
> Using the queries is probably the quickest. Creating a five field index
> requires a lot of work to maintain. Joining all five fields to an
> intermediate query of the master table, perhaps matching the date range
> only, and using the result as the basis for a bulk delete against the import
> data and then appending the balance would be very fast. An 'unmatched
> records' query would definitely be slower.
> 
> Ciao Jürgen Welz Edmonton, Alberta jwelz at hotmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> > From: Lambert.Heenan at chartisinsurance.com
> > To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
> > Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:05:11 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Fastest Way
> > 
> > 
> > As they say, suck it and see. :-)
> > 
> > I suspect that Query #3 will return the complete result set a lot faster
> than FindNext will take to locate them one at a time. So just throw the
> query together and see how long it take to run.
> > 
> > Lambert
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com 
> > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Rocky 
> > Smolin
> > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 11:28 AM
> > To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Fastest Way
> > 
> > Lambert:
> > 
> > That looks like a good approach. Query on 2) would be interesting but I'm
> not sure I would need that information if I use the query in 3) to process
> just the incoming records that are not already present. I'm a little
> concerned about the time the Unmatched Query will take when there are
> 3-4,000,000 records in the table especially since the table in the back end
> is on a server. But it wouldn't take long to implement.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Rocky
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 
> --
> 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
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Reinvent how you stay in touch with the new Windows Live Messenger.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9706116