Dan Waters
dwaters at usinternet.com
Sun Jul 13 14:12:36 CDT 2008
Jim - I am NOT arguing for bound/unbound forms. Let that go. What I had never heard of before was that SQL Server has its own mechanism to prevent data conflicts. The past discussions had never mentioned that. And the whole central point of all those discussions was how to prevent data conflicts with unbound forms - no one even mentioned that SQL Server already does this. Read chapter 21 - then you'll see what I just learned is already done and can be done. What I was hoping to get a discussion on was if anyone was actively using the different isolation levels that can be managed by a FE application, and how people where doing that, what their results were, etc, etc. Thanks, Dan -----Original Message----- From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim Lawrence Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 12:50 PM To: 'Discussion concerning MS SQL Server' Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Locking Discussion Hi Dan: Listen to Susan she knows what she is talking about. When using MS SQL Express/MS SQL/MySQL/Oracle or any of the other stand alone databases the whole concepts of tight binding that you have learned using the Access MDB are gone. Some built-in Access emulations can be rigged that give the appearance of bound fields but in some circumstances you will pay a heavy performance price. It is best to just let the DB do what it does best... manage data. Built within it are many methods for handling data conflict resolutions so you do not have to worry about it. (Note: there are situations in which what is called a 'deadly-embrace' or 'a locked record due to use conflict' can be created but it generally takes real effort and all professional DBs have unlocking tools and time-out solutions.) When you move 'up' it is time to drop the 'bound' forms and fields and this can take a bit more programming but it is not difficult and there are many here amongst the Access and SQL groups that can answer any particular questions you may have.... and the performance gains are stellar. Jim -----Original Message----- From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Dan Waters Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 9:26 AM To: SQL Server List Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Locking Discussion To everyone: Several weeks ago there was a protracted 'discussion' about this issue. While I skimmed the discussion I never did see anyone provide an answer to the question, "How can I prevent data conflicts in SQL Server?" Today I started reading my copy of Mastering SQL Server 2005 Express Edition, coauthored by Susan Harkins and Mike Gunderloy. News to me was that SQL Server has it's own quite sophisticated and flexible locking mechanism (see Chapter 21 - Locking). From page 477: "What this means to you as an application developer is that you almost never have to worry about locking." I'm just getting started upsizing an Access app, and would like to hear some discussion on this and on how this locking mechanism impacts your development of 'unbound' or 'bound' Access FE applications. Thanks! Dan _______________________________________________ dba-SQLServer mailing list dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver http://www.databaseadvisors.com _______________________________________________ dba-SQLServer mailing list dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver http://www.databaseadvisors.com