Re: Access and processor usage

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:28:31 -0700, "'69 Camaro"
<ForwardZERO_SPAM.To.69Camaro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You make a lot of good points. I also seriously doubt that as part of
developing ADO.NET MSFT all of a sudden found a much more efficient
way of moving data back and forth.

The best way I know of to settle claims and counterclaims is for some
developers to get together and develop reproducible test scenarios,
and publish the results. I have coined this idea from time to time,
but alas, no takers.

-Tom.


Hi, Rich.

If you are pulling data from a sql server (MS Sql Server, Oracle, ...)
and you are using an ODBC connection, that would be your bottle neck.

Have you ever received the "There is not enough disk space or memory to undo
the changes" warning message when _not_ using Jet tables? Isn't this a
Jet-specific message?

The fix is to use ADO (com based ADO) to pull your data (much more
bandwidth than ODBC).

Years ago, we tested linked (ODBC) Oracle tables with DSN's and ADO with
DSN-less connections, and the speeds were similar. We didn't get markedly
"increased bandwidth" using ADO. And addressing the bandwidth (network
throughput) isn't going to solve Joel's warning message that the action
query can't be undone because there's not enough disk space or memory on his
workstation. Even if you speed up the network, thereby increasing the
bandwidth, where are those bytes going? Either to memory or to disk, which
Access is already complaining there isn't enough of to undo the changes when
<CTRL><Z> is pressed.

If Access is your backend, then Access is the
bottleneck - need to step up to Sql Server.

He can fix the problem with a change of his Jet Engine settings, instead of
replacing the problem with an expensive and time-consuming upgrade to SQL
Server.

Access
has a 1 gig data limit (more like a 500 meg limit).

Access 95 and 97 can hold 1 GB of data, while Access 2000 and newer can hold
2 GB. With the horsepower Joel has, it's doubtful he's using a version of
Access older than Access 2000.

If you are working
with genuinely big data you need to step up to server based tools like
.Net and sql server.

If the data fits into a 2 GB database file, it isn't "genuinely big" yet.
Tens or hundreds of terabytes is "genuinely big." 2 GB ain't much, but if
the database is pushing that size limit, then it's time to migrate the data
to a stronger and bigger database engine. Several of them are free, such as
SQL Server 2005 Express, Oracle 10g Express, and IBM DB2 Express-C. The
first two hold up to 4 GB of data, and the last isn't limited by data file
size.

ADO.Net has way more bandwidth than com based ADO.

I didn't know that. What database connection technology can ADO.Net use
that's superior to the database connection technologies ADO is limited to?

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blogs: www.DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com, www.DatabaseTips.BlogSpot.com
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
info.


"Rich P" <rpng123@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46142592$0$501$815e3792@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you are pulling data from a sql server (MS Sql Server, Oracle, ...)
and you are using an ODBC connection, that would be your bottle neck.
The fix is to use ADO (com based ADO) to pull your data (much more
bandwidth than ODBC). If Access is your backend, then Access is the
bottleneck - need to step up to Sql Server.

If neither of the above are your scenario, and you really are pulling in
hundreds of megs of data, then Access is still the bottleneck. Access
has a 1 gig data limit (more like a 500 meg limit). If you are working
with genuinely big data you need to step up to server based tools like
.Net and sql server. ADO.Net has way more bandwidth than com based ADO.

BTW, core2Duo is sweet, heh? I just upgraded my workstation to one last
month - the shop that upgraded me said that you can maximize its full
potential by using 4 gigs of memory.

Rich

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How to access the SQL server express from mfc application?
    ... There are different ways to do this via MFC. ... You could certainly try ADO, ... the entire contents of the database to a SQL Server Standard Server. ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: Connecting to a SQL Server 2005 using VBA and ADO
    ... dao should work just fine.... ... the above example when using sql server, or a plan Jane un-split database, ... I would not use findfirst even when not using sql server unless the data set ... Microsoft since they now seem to be favoring ADO. ...
    (microsoft.public.access.formscoding)
  • Re: How to access the SQL server express from mfc application?
    ... There are different ways to do this via MFC. ... You could certainly try ADO, ... the entire contents of the database to a SQL Server Standard Server. ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: Access and processor usage
    ... developers to get together and develop reproducible test scenarios, ... See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs. ... "increased bandwidth" using ADO. ... bottleneck - need to step up to Sql Server. ...
    (comp.databases.ms-access)
  • Re: MS Access DAO -> ADO.NET Migration
    ... William Vaughn ... Microsoft MVP ... Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server ... My migration app works building a SSCE database file with imported data ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.adonet)