[dba-SQLServer] PK/ANPK Debate

Hi Stuart:

And that is what limits the size of a pure default Access implementation. 

Jim 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart McLachlan" <stuart.mclachlan at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:28:03 AM
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] PK/ANPK Debate

Access FE to Access BE - almost total bound.

Access FE to SQL Server/MySQL BE - sometimes bound/ sometines unbound depending on 
the circumstances and the datasets involved.

Any other FE  to any BE  - total unbound.

-- 
Stuart

On 13 Mar 2014 at 3:17, Darryl Collins wrote:

> Yeah, I would have hoped we have moved on by now.  For what it is
> worth, I have been firmly in the unbound camp for many years.
> 
> Regards
> Darryl.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim
> Lawrence Sent: Thursday, 13 March 2014 11:53 AM To: Discussion
> concerning MS SQL Server Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] PK/ANPK Debate
> 
> Hi Francisco:
> 
> I think that whole discussion has moved on. I seriously doubt whether
> suggesting a "bound" database is even an issue now, is a stretch and
> those still supporting it, IMHO, are on pare with members of "The
> Fall-Earth Society". The "bound" argument was flimsy even back in the
> late nineties or as soon a real ACID databases became the industry
> standard...and the realization that there was just not enough
> band-width, nodes or servers to support object binding.
> 
> Jim  
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Francisco Tapia" <fhtapia at gmail.com>
> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server"
> <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014
> 7:27:30 AM Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] PK/ANPK Debate
> 
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Darryl Collins <
> darryl at whittleconsulting.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > Bound  vs Unbound controls also seems to be a topic that gets folks,
> > ummm, passionate, about their position I have noted...
> >
> 
> only because the bound folks can't disassociate with the the critical
> requirement in today's world of being disconnected from the datasource
> for local caching and synching ;-)
> 
> [granade thrown...]
> 
> 
> -Francisco <http://twitter.com/seecoolguy>
> _______________________________________________ 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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