[AccessD] The Famous Bound/Unbound Debate

20,000 feet over open ocean, out the door without a parachute.

Simple enough concept.

Taken from a certain South American dictator that used the technique to get rid of anyone he didn't 
like.

;)

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com

On 9/13/2010 3:15 PM, Rocky Smolin wrote:
> At the same time there should be an explanation of Colbyizing  as a
> consequence of using certain programming techniques.
>
> R
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Brad Marks
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 12:03 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: [AccessD] The Famous Bound/Unbound Debate
>
> 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.
>
>