Robert L. Stewart
robert at webedb.com
Tue Apr 29 09:46:24 CDT 2008
Yes, that is correct. He is ending up loading the records into memory. Then passing individual updates back for each row of data that he changed. This method is not designed for doing large datasets like he is doing. It should be done on the SQL Server side. John, Just what are you updating...the UPDATE statement you would use to do what you are doing. Robert At 09:40 AM 4/29/2008, you wrote: >Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:44:24 -0700 >From: "Eric Barro" <ebarro at verizon.net> >Subject: Re: [dba-VB] vb.net - Updates >To: "'Discussion concerning Visual Basic and related programming > issues.'" <dba-vb at databaseadvisors.com> >Message-ID: <0K02006A29SFSYJ0 at vms173005.mailsrvcs.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >Yeah it is a terrible thing from a DBA point of view because it opens it up >to SQL injection attacks since it builds your SQL statement on the fly. > >I've tried it before and since it is generating it on the fly it makes it >all the more harder to debug and offers the least amount of control from a >DBA point of view. So...I let SQL server do all the work on the back end >when it comes to batch updates by collecting the parameters and sending it >to SQL server to process for the records it needs to process. > >Based on what you are trying to do you are building an image of the data >structure in memory, manipulating the data in memory and then committing the >changes to the database in memory basically sending the update command for >each record to the database back end right? Or am I mistaken in thinking >that all of this magically happens by sending a single update command >containing several individual update commands strung together?