[AccessD] rsR("order") vs rsR!Order

You should be able to test this yourself on a large nonindexed table. My
guess is even on million rows your computer timer will not notice the
difference. All the time will be eaten up by addnew and update.

I would instead test other things that might be done with the properties
such as simply assigning the property to a string variable a few million
times and printing the time the loop takes each method.
On Aug 1, 2011 7:27 PM, "Darryl Collins" <darryl at whittleconsulting.com.au>
wrote:
> Thanks Jim,
>
> I was trying to find out which one would be faster but was struggling to
> find the right question to ask Google to get meaningful results. '! vs ""
> Access Query' wasn't working for me too well :)
>
> Given the tiny workload and that performance is not a constraint it is
> probably neither here nor there in this case, but if the load gets heavy
> and/or speed is critical, than that sort of thing is good to know for
future
> reference.
>
> Cheers
> Darryl.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim Dettman
> Sent: Monday, 1 August 2011 10:20 PM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] rsR("order") vs rsR!Order
>
>
> It's also a tad faster. All the bang/dot notation internally is converted
> to that format before being executed.
>
> Jim.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Darryl Collins
> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:28 PM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: [AccessD] rsR("order") vs rsR!Order
>
> Hi guys & Gals,
>
> Slower day at work today so I was poking around some code they use here in
> my new role and found this syntax when dealing with recordsets in Access
VBA
>
> rsR.AddNew
> rsR("order") = rsM("order")
> rsR("sheetname") = rsM("sheetname")
> rsR("sheetnumber") = rsM("sheetnumber")
> rsR.Update
>
> It is very, ummm, MS Excel in style, but it does work ok and update the
> recordset(s) correctly.
> However I would have written it like:
>
> With rsR
> .AddNew
> !order = rsM!order
> !sheetname = rsM!sheetname
> !sheetnumber = rsM!sheetnumber
> !Update
> End with
>
> Not withstanding then with / end with bit. What is the advantage (if any)
> of one syntax over the other? Is one method faster?
> Actually, Why does the first syntax even work? I would have though you
> would have had to use the ! method, but very clearly I am totally wrong on
> that count.
>
> I had not seen code used like that before for MS Access recordsets. Maybe
I
> need to get out more?
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> Cheers
> Darryl
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com