Advice on a database Replication

Hi,

I.m trying to find the best practice for my solution.

This is the situation.

My application has two databases and 2 client interface. One with a windows forms having a database (sql server 2000) running in an office (on a static IP but on a slow connection). the second one is an web application running on the net with an online database. Both these databases have to have same information. Users can add records to both databases independently but these databases should be synchronize at a point. I hope the situation is cleare. Is there a standard way of doing this. If some one knows good article of how this can be done pls forward it to me.

Many thanks.

-VJ

You can look at Merge Replication, it can handle changes at both ends, as well as handle conflicts if necessary. How many changes per sec or minute do you expect at both ends?|||

Hi Greg,

Yes I was reading on merge replication. there can be about 200 -300 changes on the office side per day. And only about 50 changes from the web side. My only worry is the slow connection from the office end but it can run over night.

By the way whne u have created a replication can reverse it back as I created a replication and I need to change the tables. It's not very easy to do that while having the replication.

Thank you.

-VJ

|||

What is considered a "slow connection", dial-up? With such a small workload, you can schedule your syncs several times a day if you need the changes sooner.

In sql 2000, schema changes can be handled only by sp_addreplcolumn and sp_dropreplcolumn. In sql 2005, this has been expanded to include the actual ALTER TABLE command as well as several other regular TSQL commands.

|||

Hi Greg,

The slow connection is a ISDN and the speed is 64Kbps upload and 128Kbps download. The changes will only be adding and modifications to records and it's all text data. Hope this connection can handle it.

Cheers,

VJ

|||if it's a reliable connection, it should handle it fine. If you expect line drops, then the merge agent retries will cause overall duration to increase.|||

One more quick thing. if the connection drops will the server drops the data or will it rollback and run the synchronization again. This is the first time I'm doing this

Cheers,

-VJ

|||merge agent will retry the data it failed, or retry from its last savepoint.|||I had implemented with more than 10,000 record sync daily on merge replication running on a very bad dsl connection that has frequent bad packet, but it work well, as long as the config. on the replication suit the environments.|||

Hi,

Sounds good. But what exactly did u implied by the config suits the environment,

Thanks,

-VJ

|||U have to config merge agent profile to suit your current environment.For example, the size of the batch to sync and others.sql

Advice on a database Replication

Hi,

I.m trying to find the best practice for my solution.

This is the situation.

My application has two databases and 2 client interface. One with a windows forms having a database (sql server 2000) running in an office (on a static IP but on a slow connection). the second one is an web application running on the net with an online database. Both these databases have to have same information. Users can add records to both databases independently but these databases should be synchronize at a point. I hope the situation is cleare. Is there a standard way of doing this. If some one knows good article of how this can be done pls forward it to me.

Many thanks.

-VJ

You can look at Merge Replication, it can handle changes at both ends, as well as handle conflicts if necessary. How many changes per sec or minute do you expect at both ends?|||

Hi Greg,

Yes I was reading on merge replication. there can be about 200 -300 changes on the office side per day. And only about 50 changes from the web side. My only worry is the slow connection from the office end but it can run over night.

By the way whne u have created a replication can reverse it back as I created a replication and I need to change the tables. It's not very easy to do that while having the replication.

Thank you.

-VJ

|||

What is considered a "slow connection", dial-up? With such a small workload, you can schedule your syncs several times a day if you need the changes sooner.

In sql 2000, schema changes can be handled only by sp_addreplcolumn and sp_dropreplcolumn. In sql 2005, this has been expanded to include the actual ALTER TABLE command as well as several other regular TSQL commands.

|||

Hi Greg,

The slow connection is a ISDN and the speed is 64Kbps upload and 128Kbps download. The changes will only be adding and modifications to records and it's all text data. Hope this connection can handle it.

Cheers,

VJ

|||if it's a reliable connection, it should handle it fine. If you expect line drops, then the merge agent retries will cause overall duration to increase.|||

One more quick thing. if the connection drops will the server drops the data or will it rollback and run the synchronization again. This is the first time I'm doing this

Cheers,

-VJ

|||merge agent will retry the data it failed, or retry from its last savepoint.|||I had implemented with more than 10,000 record sync daily on merge replication running on a very bad dsl connection that has frequent bad packet, but it work well, as long as the config. on the replication suit the environments.|||

Hi,

Sounds good. But what exactly did u implied by the config suits the environment,

Thanks,

-VJ

|||U have to config merge agent profile to suit your current environment.For example, the size of the batch to sync and others.

Advice needed - Regarding data transfer between databases on seperate servers

Hello everyone,

Here's my situation...

I'm running a web service which involves 51 seperate servers and databases.

There are fifty licensee servers (One for each US state) and one corporate server.

Each night I need to upload sales and membership data from the licensee's databases to the corporate database to compile reports.

The application platform I'm using is ASP.NET 2.0 and the the database is SQL2005 express.

I want this process to be run automatically, so I believe it's a scheduled windows service I need to setup up in .NET to make the data transfers.

If anyone has already set something up like this, or knows the steps to take? I would love to have your input.

Thanks in advance,

Robert

Did you mean 50 Databases on same server or 50 different servers?

You could set up a DTS package and schedule it to run at a particular time every day. You dont need to do anything with .NET. This can be done completely at the backend.

|||

ndinakar:

Did you mean 50 Databases on same server or 50 different servers?

You could set up a DTS package and schedule it to run at a particular time every day. You dont need to do anything with .NET. This can be done completely at the backend.

This is correct, note that SQLAgent service has to be up & running inorder to have your DTS (in SQL Server 2000) or SSIS (in SQL Server 2005) packages executed on time.

If this service was not started (stopped), any scheduled tasks in SQL Server will not work.

Conclusion: Make sure this SQLAgent service is always up & running in all your database servers (check them after batching your OS or restarting it).

One of the bad thing about this way is, you can not generate reports at anytime .. you have to wait (say till next day) in order to see the reports for all states.

How to overcome this is by using replication (for example), by replicating the data you need from source tables (in diffrent servers) into ONE server (e.g. main branch) so you can generate the reports from all 50 data sources at any time and updated;

Just a suggestion:
If the amount of data is not that much, you can export the data (say in Excel format) then send them by email to your main branch.
This might save some traffic (bandwidth) for you, but on the another hand you need to imported to SQL Server before generating the reports.
One more good thing about this way is, you will always have a copy in your email for all 50 databases.

There are many ways to do this, actullay depends on the case and how important to get the report on anytime and how large the data is.

Good luck.

|||

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the responses!

Nethi - Yes thats right - There will be 50 seperate licensee databases, which run on 50 seperate licensee servers. Each night I need to retrieve data from each of 50 seperate databases and upload it to a database on the corporate server to run reports the next day. (51 seperate servers/databases involved)

The sales data I'll be uploading nightly will be minimal, because i'll only be capturing sales that were made that day (12 am till 11:59:59 pm the licensee's server time) The membership data will be a larger file, because I need to upload all records every night, which will overwrite the prior membership data records. So in this case there will be many rows, but the actual data being uploaded from each row is minimal.

Tell me - Using DTS...

Can I fully specify what data needs to be uploaded? (Conditions such as record creation time, etc)
The servers may be in different time zones - Would this cause problems for DTS regarding capture periods?
Using DTS, will the uploads be secure?
If a scheduled data transfer fails for some reason or another, does DTS have a feature to report the failure, and what would be involved in capturing the data that wasn't transfered as scheduled? Is it complicated, difficult and time consuming?

Thanks again for your input and advice

Robert

|||

>>>Can I fully specify what data needs to be uploaded? (Conditions such as record creation time, etc)

You can use a mix of script in DTS - VB Script/T-SQL. You can call stored procedures. Google for DTS and read up some articles to get some info.

>>>The servers may be in different time zones - Would this cause problems for DTS regarding capture periods?

The DTS will run from the server its created on, on the schedule its scheduled to run. You can schedule it according to souce server timezone or target server timezone.

>>>Using DTS, will the uploads be secure?

DTS will use either Windows Authentication or SQL authentication. You can set up either way.

>>>If a scheduled data transfer fails for some reason or another, does DTS have a feature to report the failure, and what would be involved in capturing the data that wasn't transfered as scheduled? Is it complicated, difficult and time consuming?

You call the DTS package from a scheduled job. The job has additional options of reporting - email/pager and different options for success/failure.

|||

As much as I know Sql Server 2005 Express does not support DTS.

sql

ADP vs. MDB: Speed

I have a situation with an ODBC linked view in an Access 2000 MDB with a SQL
7 back end. The view is scrolling very slowly. However, if I open the view
in an ADP file, it scrolls quickly.
I needed to use an ODBC link for the view because it needs to be editable.
Otherwise, I would have used a pass-through query.
In previous discussions about using an MDB file vs. an ADP file as a front
end for SQL Server, the impression I got was that both were about the same,
but that the MDB was a more mature technology and less problematic than the
ADP technology. However, the speed difference I'm noticing with the ADP file
in regards to this view is significant and is very disconcerting re. using
an MDB file.
Any thoughts/comments/suggestions would be appreciated. I've reproduced the
view's SQL below for reference.
Thanks,
Neil
SQL for view in question:
SELECT INVTRY.[Index], INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1,
INVTRY.attFirstEdition, INVTRY.attSigned,
ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' ') SignedCond, INVTRY.YRPUB,
INVTRY.PRICE, INVTRY.Web, INVTRY.Status,
INVTRY.WebStatusPending, INVTRY.ActivateDate,
INVTRY.DeactivateDate, INVTRY.WebAddedBatchID,
INVTRY.AllowDuplicate, INVTRY.WebAction,
INVTRY.WebActionPending, INVTRY.DateModified,
INVTRY.DateWebActionApplied, INVTRY.JIT, INVTRY.MImage,
INVTRY.HImage, INVTRY.AdCode,
CASE WHEN INVTRY.WebAddedBatchID IS NOT NULL
THEN - 1 ELSE 0 END AS OnWeb
FROM vwInventory_Dupes INNER JOIN
(WebStatus INNER JOIN
(INVTRY INNER JOIN
tabStatus ON INVTRY.Status = tabStatus.Status) ON
WebStatus.WebStatus = INVTRY.Web) ON
(vwInventory_Dupes.YearPub = INVTRY.YRPUB) AND
(vwInventory_Dupes.SignedCond = ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD,
' ')) AND (vwInventory_Dupes.Signed = INVTRY.attSigned) AND
(vwInventory_Dupes.FirstEd = INVTRY.attFirstEdition) AND
(vwInventory_Dupes.Author = INVTRY.AUTHILL1) AND
(vwInventory_Dupes.TITLE = INVTRY.TITLE)
WHERE (((tabStatus.ForWeb) = 1) AND ((WebStatus.IncludeDupe)
= 1))
SQL for vwInventory_Dupes, used as subquery:
SELECT INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1 Author,
Cast(attFirstEdition AS tinyint) FirstEd,
Cast(attSigned AS tinyint) Signed,
ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' ') SignedCond,
INVTRY.YRPUB YearPub
FROM WebStatus INNER JOIN
(INVTRY INNER JOIN
tabStatus ON INVTRY.Status = tabStatus.Status) ON
WebStatus.WebStatus = INVTRY.Web
WHERE (((tabStatus.ForWeb) = 1) AND ((WebStatus.IncludeDupe)
= 1))
GROUP BY INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1,
Cast(attFirstEdition AS tinyint), Cast(attSigned AS tinyint),
ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' '), INVTRY.YRPUB
HAVING (((COUNT(INVTRY.[INDEX])) > 1))
The ways ADPs and MDBs use recordsets are very different, so sometimes one or
the other will be faster.
By default, the MDB opens a Dynaset which means it first opens a connection to
grab the list of keys for the records, then reads the actual records as needed
for display by doing individual selects of 10 records aby explicit key. This
can help speed when each row has a lot of data because only the rows that are
actually viewd will be read, not all of them. On the other hand, if the table
has a very large number of rows, Access will spend a lot of time in the
background reading the whole list of keys, and if the key lookup for each row
is slow for some reason, everything will be sluggish.
An ADP, a static recordset is normally used, and an absolute cap of 10,000
rows is applied, so if your recordset has more than that, you just won't get
all the rows. Static means in loads all the data at once, then you browse
through it in memeory. That's very fast once you load the data, but if each
row has a lot of data, especially memo fields and such, it can take a long
time to initially load.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:31:48 GMT, "Neil" <njones@.pxdy.com> wrote:

>I have a situation with an ODBC linked view in an Access 2000 MDB with a SQL
>7 back end. The view is scrolling very slowly. However, if I open the view
>in an ADP file, it scrolls quickly.
>I needed to use an ODBC link for the view because it needs to be editable.
>Otherwise, I would have used a pass-through query.
>In previous discussions about using an MDB file vs. an ADP file as a front
>end for SQL Server, the impression I got was that both were about the same,
>but that the MDB was a more mature technology and less problematic than the
>ADP technology. However, the speed difference I'm noticing with the ADP file
>in regards to this view is significant and is very disconcerting re. using
>an MDB file.
>Any thoughts/comments/suggestions would be appreciated. I've reproduced the
>view's SQL below for reference.
>Thanks,
>Neil
>SQL for view in question:
>SELECT INVTRY.[Index], INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1,
> INVTRY.attFirstEdition, INVTRY.attSigned,
> ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' ') SignedCond, INVTRY.YRPUB,
> INVTRY.PRICE, INVTRY.Web, INVTRY.Status,
> INVTRY.WebStatusPending, INVTRY.ActivateDate,
> INVTRY.DeactivateDate, INVTRY.WebAddedBatchID,
> INVTRY.AllowDuplicate, INVTRY.WebAction,
> INVTRY.WebActionPending, INVTRY.DateModified,
> INVTRY.DateWebActionApplied, INVTRY.JIT, INVTRY.MImage,
> INVTRY.HImage, INVTRY.AdCode,
> CASE WHEN INVTRY.WebAddedBatchID IS NOT NULL
> THEN - 1 ELSE 0 END AS OnWeb
>FROM vwInventory_Dupes INNER JOIN
> (WebStatus INNER JOIN
> (INVTRY INNER JOIN
> tabStatus ON INVTRY.Status = tabStatus.Status) ON
> WebStatus.WebStatus = INVTRY.Web) ON
> (vwInventory_Dupes.YearPub = INVTRY.YRPUB) AND
> (vwInventory_Dupes.SignedCond = ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD,
> ' ')) AND (vwInventory_Dupes.Signed = INVTRY.attSigned) AND
> (vwInventory_Dupes.FirstEd = INVTRY.attFirstEdition) AND
> (vwInventory_Dupes.Author = INVTRY.AUTHILL1) AND
> (vwInventory_Dupes.TITLE = INVTRY.TITLE)
>WHERE (((tabStatus.ForWeb) = 1) AND ((WebStatus.IncludeDupe)
> = 1))
>SQL for vwInventory_Dupes, used as subquery:
>SELECT INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1 Author,
> Cast(attFirstEdition AS tinyint) FirstEd,
> Cast(attSigned AS tinyint) Signed,
> ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' ') SignedCond,
> INVTRY.YRPUB YearPub
>FROM WebStatus INNER JOIN
> (INVTRY INNER JOIN
> tabStatus ON INVTRY.Status = tabStatus.Status) ON
> WebStatus.WebStatus = INVTRY.Web
>WHERE (((tabStatus.ForWeb) = 1) AND ((WebStatus.IncludeDupe)
> = 1))
>GROUP BY INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1,
> Cast(attFirstEdition AS tinyint), Cast(attSigned AS tinyint),
> ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' '), INVTRY.YRPUB
>HAVING (((COUNT(INVTRY.[INDEX])) > 1))
>
|||You may try to add a virtual index on your linked view:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q209123/
If this doesn't help, then you will have to use an unbound form coupled with
SQL pass-through queries (or ADO objects) to resolve your speed problem with
MDB. Another solution could be to go with TS to simulate a high-speed LAN.
I don't know where you got the impression that MDB were about the same as
ADP in term of speed. It has been repeated a number of times that the use
of MDB' linked tables and views is only a workable solution for small
databases on a fast Lan.
S. L.
"Neil" <njones@.pxdy.com> wrote in message
news:Uxa%d.15606$cN6.15135@.newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
>I have a situation with an ODBC linked view in an Access 2000 MDB with a
>SQL 7 back end. The view is scrolling very slowly. However, if I open the
>view in an ADP file, it scrolls quickly.
> I needed to use an ODBC link for the view because it needs to be editable.
> Otherwise, I would have used a pass-through query.
> In previous discussions about using an MDB file vs. an ADP file as a front
> end for SQL Server, the impression I got was that both were about the
> same, but that the MDB was a more mature technology and less problematic
> than the ADP technology. However, the speed difference I'm noticing with
> the ADP file in regards to this view is significant and is very
> disconcerting re. using an MDB file.
> Any thoughts/comments/suggestions would be appreciated. I've reproduced
> the view's SQL below for reference.
> Thanks,
> Neil
> SQL for view in question:
> SELECT INVTRY.[Index], INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1,
> INVTRY.attFirstEdition, INVTRY.attSigned,
> ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' ') SignedCond, INVTRY.YRPUB,
> INVTRY.PRICE, INVTRY.Web, INVTRY.Status,
> INVTRY.WebStatusPending, INVTRY.ActivateDate,
> INVTRY.DeactivateDate, INVTRY.WebAddedBatchID,
> INVTRY.AllowDuplicate, INVTRY.WebAction,
> INVTRY.WebActionPending, INVTRY.DateModified,
> INVTRY.DateWebActionApplied, INVTRY.JIT, INVTRY.MImage,
> INVTRY.HImage, INVTRY.AdCode,
> CASE WHEN INVTRY.WebAddedBatchID IS NOT NULL
> THEN - 1 ELSE 0 END AS OnWeb
> FROM vwInventory_Dupes INNER JOIN
> (WebStatus INNER JOIN
> (INVTRY INNER JOIN
> tabStatus ON INVTRY.Status = tabStatus.Status) ON
> WebStatus.WebStatus = INVTRY.Web) ON
> (vwInventory_Dupes.YearPub = INVTRY.YRPUB) AND
> (vwInventory_Dupes.SignedCond = ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD,
> ' ')) AND (vwInventory_Dupes.Signed = INVTRY.attSigned) AND
> (vwInventory_Dupes.FirstEd = INVTRY.attFirstEdition) AND
> (vwInventory_Dupes.Author = INVTRY.AUTHILL1) AND
> (vwInventory_Dupes.TITLE = INVTRY.TITLE)
> WHERE (((tabStatus.ForWeb) = 1) AND ((WebStatus.IncludeDupe)
> = 1))
> SQL for vwInventory_Dupes, used as subquery:
> SELECT INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1 Author,
> Cast(attFirstEdition AS tinyint) FirstEd,
> Cast(attSigned AS tinyint) Signed,
> ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' ') SignedCond,
> INVTRY.YRPUB YearPub
> FROM WebStatus INNER JOIN
> (INVTRY INNER JOIN
> tabStatus ON INVTRY.Status = tabStatus.Status) ON
> WebStatus.WebStatus = INVTRY.Web
> WHERE (((tabStatus.ForWeb) = 1) AND ((WebStatus.IncludeDupe)
> = 1))
> GROUP BY INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1,
> Cast(attFirstEdition AS tinyint), Cast(attSigned AS tinyint),
> ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' '), INVTRY.YRPUB
> HAVING (((COUNT(INVTRY.[INDEX])) > 1))
>
|||On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:32:10 -0500, "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill
the blanks, no spam please)> wrote:

>You may try to add a virtual index on your linked view:
>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q209123/
>If this doesn't help, then you will have to use an unbound form coupled with
>SQL pass-through queries (or ADO objects) to resolve your speed problem with
>MDB. Another solution could be to go with TS to simulate a high-speed LAN.
>I don't know where you got the impression that MDB were about the same as
>ADP in term of speed. It has been repeated a number of times that the use
>of MDB' linked tables and views is only a workable solution for small
>databases on a fast Lan.
Frankly, I find that statement ludicrous. Many developers including myself
have had excelent results using MDBs as front-ends to various kinds of SQL
Server back-end for many years before there was such a thing as an ADP. When
MDBs are slow, the workarounds to fix it are far less arduous than the
workarounds required in ADPs to simply make them function in many cases.
|||The view in question only returns 1154 rows. So we're not talking a large
number here. And only returning 24 fields.
There was a modification recently where three additional fields were added
to the view, and that seemed to slow things down significantly. I'm not sure
if there's some boundary at around 24 fields, or if something else is going
on. But the linked view is *very* slow, taking several seconds just to bring
up the first screen, and then, whenever the scroll bar goes down by one,
several more seconds just to refresh. The ADP view, on the other hand, is
fast, with no delay at all, either in bringing up the data or in scrolling.
Neil
"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:kq9r31tdjl3tv8v10kourkov1psurko5ug@.4ax.com...
> The ways ADPs and MDBs use recordsets are very different, so sometimes one
> or
> the other will be faster.
> By default, the MDB opens a Dynaset which means it first opens a
> connection to
> grab the list of keys for the records, then reads the actual records as
> needed
> for display by doing individual selects of 10 records aby explicit key.
> This
> can help speed when each row has a lot of data because only the rows that
> are
> actually viewd will be read, not all of them. On the other hand, if the
> table
> has a very large number of rows, Access will spend a lot of time in the
> background reading the whole list of keys, and if the key lookup for each
> row
> is slow for some reason, everything will be sluggish.
> An ADP, a static recordset is normally used, and an absolute cap of 10,000
> rows is applied, so if your recordset has more than that, you just won't
> get
> all the rows. Static means in loads all the data at once, then you browse
> through it in memeory. That's very fast once you load the data, but if
> each
> row has a lot of data, especially memo fields and such, it can take a long
> time to initially load.
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:31:48 GMT, "Neil" <njones@.pxdy.com> wrote:
>
|||> You may try to add a virtual index on your linked view:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q209123/
Yes, these are added when you first attach the view or table. When the
object doesn't have a primary key (as with views) Access prompts you for
which field(s) to use as pk. It then stores that information. You can't
update the data otherwise. So it's already there.

> If this doesn't help, then you will have to use an unbound form coupled
> with SQL pass-through queries (or ADO objects) to resolve your speed
> problem with MDB.
As noted, the reason for not using pass-through is because it needs to be
updatable.

>Another solution could be to go with TS to simulate a high-speed LAN.
What is "TS"?

> I don't know where you got the impression that MDB were about the same as
> ADP in term of speed. It has been repeated a number of times that the use
> of MDB' linked tables and views is only a workable solution for small
> databases on a fast Lan.
From discussions in this newsgroup.
Neil

> S. L.
> "Neil" <njones@.pxdy.com> wrote in message
> news:Uxa%d.15606$cN6.15135@.newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
>
|||TS = Terminal Server; you can also use Citrix. This is a quick fix for
getting a multi-user access to an Access' MDB file over the Internet or to
solve the possibility of corruption when you LAN network is not rock solid.
However, this solution come with a price ($).
With the use of unbound forms as the solution, you are responsible for
sending the modifications to the data back to the database. This will give
you the possibility to use the result of a read-only SQL pass-through in a
form but, obviously, with the obligation of having more coding work to be
done. Of course, some of this work can be partially automated. You will
find more information on that subject on books dealing with Access and
SQL-Server. (Personally, I prefer to use ADP but it has many bugs.)
By using the profiler on the SQL-Server, it is also possible that you will
see something that will give you the possibility of resolving the speed
problem of you linked views by having a better understanding of what Access
is doing when it communicates with the server.
S. L.
"Neil" <njones@.pxdy.com> wrote in message
news:FCk%d.633$H06.566@.newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> Yes, these are added when you first attach the view or table. When the
> object doesn't have a primary key (as with views) Access prompts you for
> which field(s) to use as pk. It then stores that information. You can't
> update the data otherwise. So it's already there.
>
> As noted, the reason for not using pass-through is because it needs to be
> updatable.
>
> What is "TS"?
>
> From discussions in this newsgroup.
> Neil
>
>
|||Are you talking about the WAN or a LAN?
In the case of the WAN, all tests that I have done in the past indicate that
MDB files are much slower to access a SQL-Server backend. The use of linked
views will greatly reduce the performance hit but even with them, I don't
see the benefice of creating hundred of views instead of creating hundred of
stored procedures. If you want to get some decent speed over the internet,
there are a lot more of work to do using MDB than using ADP and even then,
I'm not really sure if the use of linked views will achieve the same level
of performance.
You are entitled to your opinion but all the tests that I have done in the
past clearly indicate that the use of MDB to access a SQL-Server over the
internet is only, at its best, a kludge.
For a LAN, the problem is of course much less severe but at the condition
that the network is not already overcrowded.
S. L.
"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:vvgr31l3buv11blqbv3utfk22uhgoa3vab@.4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:32:10 -0500, "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca
> (fill
> the blanks, no spam please)> wrote:
>
> Frankly, I find that statement ludicrous. Many developers including
> myself
> have had excelent results using MDBs as front-ends to various kinds of SQL
> Server back-end for many years before there was such a thing as an ADP.
> When
> MDBs are slow, the workarounds to fix it are far less arduous than the
> workarounds required in ADPs to simply make them function in many cases.
>
|||Did you specify a field or set of fields to be used as the primary key for the
view when you created the link? If not, it will be slower, and will not be
updateable.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:58:33 GMT, "Neil" <njones@.pxdy.com> wrote:

>The view in question only returns 1154 rows. So we're not talking a large
>number here. And only returning 24 fields.
>There was a modification recently where three additional fields were added
>to the view, and that seemed to slow things down significantly. I'm not sure
>if there's some boundary at around 24 fields, or if something else is going
>on. But the linked view is *very* slow, taking several seconds just to bring
>up the first screen, and then, whenever the scroll bar goes down by one,
>several more seconds just to refresh. The ADP view, on the other hand, is
>fast, with no delay at all, either in bringing up the data or in scrolling.
>Neil
>
>"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>news:kq9r31tdjl3tv8v10kourkov1psurko5ug@.4ax.com.. .
>
|||Well, perhaps the reason for our difference of opinion is that I never thought
it was particularly appropriate to connect directly to a database server
across a WAN at all. I usually recommend using a terminal server or rewriting
the app as a Web application or some other kind of 3-tier application.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:49:55 -0500, "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill
the blanks, no spam please)> wrote:

>Are you talking about the WAN or a LAN?
>In the case of the WAN, all tests that I have done in the past indicate that
>MDB files are much slower to access a SQL-Server backend. The use of linked
>views will greatly reduce the performance hit but even with them, I don't
>see the benefice of creating hundred of views instead of creating hundred of
>stored procedures. If you want to get some decent speed over the internet,
>there are a lot more of work to do using MDB than using ADP and even then,
>I'm not really sure if the use of linked views will achieve the same level
>of performance.
>You are entitled to your opinion but all the tests that I have done in the
>past clearly indicate that the use of MDB to access a SQL-Server over the
>internet is only, at its best, a kludge.
>For a LAN, the problem is of course much less severe but at the condition
>that the network is not already overcrowded.
>S. L.
>"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>news:vvgr31l3buv11blqbv3utfk22uhgoa3vab@.4ax.com.. .
>

ADP vs. MDB: Speed

I have a situation with an ODBC linked view in an Access 2000 MDB with a SQL
7 back end. The view is scrolling very slowly. However, if I open the view
in an ADP file, it scrolls quickly.
I needed to use an ODBC link for the view because it needs to be editable.
Otherwise, I would have used a pass-through query.
In previous discussions about using an MDB file vs. an ADP file as a front
end for SQL Server, the impression I got was that both were about the same,
but that the MDB was a more mature technology and less problematic than the
ADP technology. However, the speed difference I'm noticing with the ADP file
in regards to this view is significant and is very disconcerting re. using
an MDB file.
Any thoughts/comments/suggestions would be appreciated. I've reproduced the
view's SQL below for reference.
Thanks,
Neil
SQL for view in question:
SELECT INVTRY.[Index], INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1,
INVTRY.attFirstEdition, INVTRY.attSigned,
ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' ') SignedCond, INVTRY.YRPUB,
INVTRY.PRICE, INVTRY.Web, INVTRY.Status,
INVTRY.WebStatusPending, INVTRY.ActivateDate,
INVTRY.DeactivateDate, INVTRY.WebAddedBatchID,
INVTRY.AllowDuplicate, INVTRY.WebAction,
INVTRY.WebActionPending, INVTRY.DateModified,
INVTRY.DateWebActionApplied, INVTRY.JIT, INVTRY.MImage,
INVTRY.HImage, INVTRY.AdCode,
CASE WHEN INVTRY.WebAddedBatchID IS NOT NULL
THEN - 1 ELSE 0 END AS OnWeb
FROM vwInventory_Dupes INNER JOIN
(WebStatus INNER JOIN
(INVTRY INNER JOIN
tabStatus ON INVTRY.Status = tabStatus.Status) ON
WebStatus.WebStatus = INVTRY.Web) ON
(vwInventory_Dupes.YearPub = INVTRY.YRPUB) AND
(vwInventory_Dupes.SignedCond = ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD,
' ')) AND (vwInventory_Dupes.Signed = INVTRY.attSigned) AND
(vwInventory_Dupes.FirstEd = INVTRY.attFirstEdition) AND
(vwInventory_Dupes.Author = INVTRY.AUTHILL1) AND
(vwInventory_Dupes.TITLE = INVTRY.TITLE)
WHERE (((tabStatus.ForWeb) = 1) AND ((WebStatus.IncludeDupe)
= 1))
SQL for vwInventory_Dupes, used as subquery:
SELECT INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1 Author,
Cast(attFirstEdition AS tinyint) FirstEd,
Cast(attSigned AS tinyint) Signed,
ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' ') SignedCond,
INVTRY.YRPUB YearPub
FROM WebStatus INNER JOIN
(INVTRY INNER JOIN
tabStatus ON INVTRY.Status = tabStatus.Status) ON
WebStatus.WebStatus = INVTRY.Web
WHERE (((tabStatus.ForWeb) = 1) AND ((WebStatus.IncludeDupe)
= 1))
GROUP BY INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1,
Cast(attFirstEdition AS tinyint), Cast(attSigned AS tinyint),
ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' '), INVTRY.YRPUB
HAVING (((COUNT(INVTRY.[INDEX])) > 1))The ways ADPs and MDBs use recordsets are very different, so sometimes one o
r
the other will be faster.
By default, the MDB opens a Dynaset which means it first opens a connection
to
grab the list of keys for the records, then reads the actual records as need
ed
for display by doing individual selects of 10 records aby explicit key. Thi
s
can help speed when each row has a lot of data because only the rows that ar
e
actually viewd will be read, not all of them. On the other hand, if the tab
le
has a very large number of rows, Access will spend a lot of time in the
background reading the whole list of keys, and if the key lookup for each ro
w
is slow for some reason, everything will be sluggish.
An ADP, a static recordset is normally used, and an absolute cap of 10,000
rows is applied, so if your recordset has more than that, you just won't get
all the rows. Static means in loads all the data at once, then you browse
through it in memeory. That's very fast once you load the data, but if each
row has a lot of data, especially memo fields and such, it can take a long
time to initially load.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:31:48 GMT, "Neil" <njones@.pxdy.com> wrote:

>I have a situation with an ODBC linked view in an Access 2000 MDB with a SQ
L
>7 back end. The view is scrolling very slowly. However, if I open the view
>in an ADP file, it scrolls quickly.
>I needed to use an ODBC link for the view because it needs to be editable.
>Otherwise, I would have used a pass-through query.
>In previous discussions about using an MDB file vs. an ADP file as a front
>end for SQL Server, the impression I got was that both were about the same,
>but that the MDB was a more mature technology and less problematic than the
>ADP technology. However, the speed difference I'm noticing with the ADP fil
e
>in regards to this view is significant and is very disconcerting re. using
>an MDB file.
>Any thoughts/comments/suggestions would be appreciated. I've reproduced the
>view's SQL below for reference.
>Thanks,
>Neil
>SQL for view in question:
>SELECT INVTRY.[Index], INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1,
> INVTRY.attFirstEdition, INVTRY.attSigned,
> ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' ') SignedCond, INVTRY.YRPUB,
> INVTRY.PRICE, INVTRY.Web, INVTRY.Status,
> INVTRY.WebStatusPending, INVTRY.ActivateDate,
> INVTRY.DeactivateDate, INVTRY.WebAddedBatchID,
> INVTRY.AllowDuplicate, INVTRY.WebAction,
> INVTRY.WebActionPending, INVTRY.DateModified,
> INVTRY.DateWebActionApplied, INVTRY.JIT, INVTRY.MImage,
> INVTRY.HImage, INVTRY.AdCode,
> CASE WHEN INVTRY.WebAddedBatchID IS NOT NULL
> THEN - 1 ELSE 0 END AS OnWeb
>FROM vwInventory_Dupes INNER JOIN
> (WebStatus INNER JOIN
> (INVTRY INNER JOIN
> tabStatus ON INVTRY.Status = tabStatus.Status) ON
> WebStatus.WebStatus = INVTRY.Web) ON
> (vwInventory_Dupes.YearPub = INVTRY.YRPUB) AND
> (vwInventory_Dupes.SignedCond = ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD,
> ' ')) AND (vwInventory_Dupes.Signed = INVTRY.attSigned) AND
> (vwInventory_Dupes.FirstEd = INVTRY.attFirstEdition) AND
> (vwInventory_Dupes.Author = INVTRY.AUTHILL1) AND
> (vwInventory_Dupes.TITLE = INVTRY.TITLE)
>WHERE (((tabStatus.ForWeb) = 1) AND ((WebStatus.IncludeDupe)
> = 1))
>SQL for vwInventory_Dupes, used as subquery:
>SELECT INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1 Author,
> Cast(attFirstEdition AS tinyint) FirstEd,
> Cast(attSigned AS tinyint) Signed,
> ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' ') SignedCond,
> INVTRY.YRPUB YearPub
>FROM WebStatus INNER JOIN
> (INVTRY INNER JOIN
> tabStatus ON INVTRY.Status = tabStatus.Status) ON
> WebStatus.WebStatus = INVTRY.Web
>WHERE (((tabStatus.ForWeb) = 1) AND ((WebStatus.IncludeDupe)
> = 1))
>GROUP BY INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1,
> Cast(attFirstEdition AS tinyint), Cast(attSigned AS tinyint),
> ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' '), INVTRY.YRPUB
>HAVING (((COUNT(INVTRY.[INDEX])) > 1))
>|||You may try to add a virtual index on your linked view:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q209123/
If this doesn't help, then you will have to use an unbound form coupled with
SQL pass-through queries (or ADO objects) to resolve your speed problem with
MDB. Another solution could be to go with TS to simulate a high-speed LAN.
I don't know where you got the impression that MDB were about the same as
ADP in term of speed. It has been repeated a number of times that the use
of MDB' linked tables and views is only a workable solution for small
databases on a fast Lan.
S. L.
"Neil" <njones@.pxdy.com> wrote in message
news:Uxa%d.15606$cN6.15135@.newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I have a situation with an ODBC linked view in an Access 2000 MDB with a
>SQL 7 back end. The view is scrolling very slowly. However, if I open the
>view in an ADP file, it scrolls quickly.
> I needed to use an ODBC link for the view because it needs to be editable.
> Otherwise, I would have used a pass-through query.
> In previous discussions about using an MDB file vs. an ADP file as a front
> end for SQL Server, the impression I got was that both were about the
> same, but that the MDB was a more mature technology and less problematic
> than the ADP technology. However, the speed difference I'm noticing with
> the ADP file in regards to this view is significant and is very
> disconcerting re. using an MDB file.
> Any thoughts/comments/suggestions would be appreciated. I've reproduced
> the view's SQL below for reference.
> Thanks,
> Neil
> SQL for view in question:
> SELECT INVTRY.[Index], INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1,
> INVTRY.attFirstEdition, INVTRY.attSigned,
> ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' ') SignedCond, INVTRY.YRPUB,
> INVTRY.PRICE, INVTRY.Web, INVTRY.Status,
> INVTRY.WebStatusPending, INVTRY.ActivateDate,
> INVTRY.DeactivateDate, INVTRY.WebAddedBatchID,
> INVTRY.AllowDuplicate, INVTRY.WebAction,
> INVTRY.WebActionPending, INVTRY.DateModified,
> INVTRY.DateWebActionApplied, INVTRY.JIT, INVTRY.MImage,
> INVTRY.HImage, INVTRY.AdCode,
> CASE WHEN INVTRY.WebAddedBatchID IS NOT NULL
> THEN - 1 ELSE 0 END AS OnWeb
> FROM vwInventory_Dupes INNER JOIN
> (WebStatus INNER JOIN
> (INVTRY INNER JOIN
> tabStatus ON INVTRY.Status = tabStatus.Status) ON
> WebStatus.WebStatus = INVTRY.Web) ON
> (vwInventory_Dupes.YearPub = INVTRY.YRPUB) AND
> (vwInventory_Dupes.SignedCond = ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD,
> ' ')) AND (vwInventory_Dupes.Signed = INVTRY.attSigned) AND
> (vwInventory_Dupes.FirstEd = INVTRY.attFirstEdition) AND
> (vwInventory_Dupes.Author = INVTRY.AUTHILL1) AND
> (vwInventory_Dupes.TITLE = INVTRY.TITLE)
> WHERE (((tabStatus.ForWeb) = 1) AND ((WebStatus.IncludeDupe)
> = 1))
> SQL for vwInventory_Dupes, used as subquery:
> SELECT INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1 Author,
> Cast(attFirstEdition AS tinyint) FirstEd,
> Cast(attSigned AS tinyint) Signed,
> ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' ') SignedCond,
> INVTRY.YRPUB YearPub
> FROM WebStatus INNER JOIN
> (INVTRY INNER JOIN
> tabStatus ON INVTRY.Status = tabStatus.Status) ON
> WebStatus.WebStatus = INVTRY.Web
> WHERE (((tabStatus.ForWeb) = 1) AND ((WebStatus.IncludeDupe)
> = 1))
> GROUP BY INVTRY.TITLE, INVTRY.AUTHILL1,
> Cast(attFirstEdition AS tinyint), Cast(attSigned AS tinyint),
> ISNULL(INVTRY.attSignedPD, ' '), INVTRY.YRPUB
> HAVING (((COUNT(INVTRY.[INDEX])) > 1))
>|||The view in question only returns 1154 rows. So we're not talking a large
number here. And only returning 24 fields.
There was a modification recently where three additional fields were added
to the view, and that seemed to slow things down significantly. I'm not sure
if there's some boundary at around 24 fields, or if something else is going
on. But the linked view is *very* slow, taking several seconds just to bring
up the first screen, and then, whenever the scroll bar goes down by one,
several more seconds just to refresh. The ADP view, on the other hand, is
fast, with no delay at all, either in bringing up the data or in scrolling.
Neil
"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:kq9r31tdjl3tv8v10kourkov1psurko5ug@.
4ax.com...
> The ways ADPs and MDBs use recordsets are very different, so sometimes one
> or
> the other will be faster.
> By default, the MDB opens a Dynaset which means it first opens a
> connection to
> grab the list of keys for the records, then reads the actual records as
> needed
> for display by doing individual selects of 10 records aby explicit key.
> This
> can help speed when each row has a lot of data because only the rows that
> are
> actually viewd will be read, not all of them. On the other hand, if the
> table
> has a very large number of rows, Access will spend a lot of time in the
> background reading the whole list of keys, and if the key lookup for each
> row
> is slow for some reason, everything will be sluggish.
> An ADP, a static recordset is normally used, and an absolute cap of 10,000
> rows is applied, so if your recordset has more than that, you just won't
> get
> all the rows. Static means in loads all the data at once, then you browse
> through it in memeory. That's very fast once you load the data, but if
> each
> row has a lot of data, especially memo fields and such, it can take a long
> time to initially load.
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:31:48 GMT, "Neil" <njones@.pxdy.com> wrote:
>
>|||> You may try to add a virtual index on your linked view:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q209123/
Yes, these are added when you first attach the view or table. When the
object doesn't have a primary key (as with views) Access prompts you for
which field(s) to use as pk. It then stores that information. You can't
update the data otherwise. So it's already there.

> If this doesn't help, then you will have to use an unbound form coupled
> with SQL pass-through queries (or ADO objects) to resolve your speed
> problem with MDB.
As noted, the reason for not using pass-through is because it needs to be
updatable.

>Another solution could be to go with TS to simulate a high-speed LAN.
What is "TS"?

> I don't know where you got the impression that MDB were about the same as
> ADP in term of speed. It has been repeated a number of times that the use
> of MDB' linked tables and views is only a workable solution for small
> databases on a fast Lan.
From discussions in this newsgroup.
Neil

> S. L.
> "Neil" <njones@.pxdy.com> wrote in message
> news:Uxa%d.15606$cN6.15135@.newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>|||TS = Terminal Server; you can also use Citrix. This is a quick fix for
getting a multi-user access to an Access' MDB file over the Internet or to
solve the possibility of corruption when you LAN network is not rock solid.
However, this solution come with a price ($).
With the use of unbound forms as the solution, you are responsible for
sending the modifications to the data back to the database. This will give
you the possibility to use the result of a read-only SQL pass-through in a
form but, obviously, with the obligation of having more coding work to be
done. Of course, some of this work can be partially automated. You will
find more information on that subject on books dealing with Access and
SQL-Server. (Personally, I prefer to use ADP but it has many bugs.)
By using the profiler on the SQL-Server, it is also possible that you will
see something that will give you the possibility of resolving the speed
problem of you linked views by having a better understanding of what Access
is doing when it communicates with the server.
S. L.
"Neil" <njones@.pxdy.com> wrote in message
news:FCk%d.633$H06.566@.newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Yes, these are added when you first attach the view or table. When the
> object doesn't have a primary key (as with views) Access prompts you for
> which field(s) to use as pk. It then stores that information. You can't
> update the data otherwise. So it's already there.
>
> As noted, the reason for not using pass-through is because it needs to be
> updatable.
>
> What is "TS"?
>
> From discussions in this newsgroup.
> Neil
>
>|||Are you talking about the WAN or a LAN?
In the case of the WAN, all tests that I have done in the past indicate that
MDB files are much slower to access a SQL-Server backend. The use of linked
views will greatly reduce the performance hit but even with them, I don't
see the benefice of creating hundred of views instead of creating hundred of
stored procedures. If you want to get some decent speed over the internet,
there are a lot more of work to do using MDB than using ADP and even then,
I'm not really sure if the use of linked views will achieve the same level
of performance.
You are entitled to your opinion but all the tests that I have done in the
past clearly indicate that the use of MDB to access a SQL-Server over the
internet is only, at its best, a kludge.
For a LAN, the problem is of course much less severe but at the condition
that the network is not already overcrowded.
S. L.
"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:vvgr31l3buv11blqbv3utfk22uhgoa3vab@.
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:32:10 -0500, "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca
> (fill
> the blanks, no spam please)> wrote:
>
> Frankly, I find that statement ludicrous. Many developers including
> myself
> have had excelent results using MDBs as front-ends to various kinds of SQL
> Server back-end for many years before there was such a thing as an ADP.
> When
> MDBs are slow, the workarounds to fix it are far less arduous than the
> workarounds required in ADPs to simply make them function in many cases.
>|||Did you specify a field or set of fields to be used as the primary key for t
he
view when you created the link? If not, it will be slower, and will not be
updateable.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:58:33 GMT, "Neil" <njones@.pxdy.com> wrote:

>The view in question only returns 1154 rows. So we're not talking a large
>number here. And only returning 24 fields.
>There was a modification recently where three additional fields were added
>to the view, and that seemed to slow things down significantly. I'm not sur
e
>if there's some boundary at around 24 fields, or if something else is going
>on. But the linked view is *very* slow, taking several seconds just to brin
g
>up the first screen, and then, whenever the scroll bar goes down by one,
>several more seconds just to refresh. The ADP view, on the other hand, is
>fast, with no delay at all, either in bringing up the data or in scrolling.
>Neil
>
>"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:kq9r31tdjl3tv8v10kourkov1psurko5ug@.
4ax.com...
>|||Well, perhaps the reason for our difference of opinion is that I never thoug
ht
it was particularly appropriate to connect directly to a database server
across a WAN at all. I usually recommend using a terminal server or rewriti
ng
the app as a Web application or some other kind of 3-tier application.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:49:55 -0500, "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fi
ll
the blanks, no spam please)> wrote:

>Are you talking about the WAN or a LAN?
>In the case of the WAN, all tests that I have done in the past indicate tha
t
>MDB files are much slower to access a SQL-Server backend. The use of linke
d
>views will greatly reduce the performance hit but even with them, I don't
>see the benefice of creating hundred of views instead of creating hundred o
f
>stored procedures. If you want to get some decent speed over the internet,
>there are a lot more of work to do using MDB than using ADP and even then,
>I'm not really sure if the use of linked views will achieve the same level
>of performance.
>You are entitled to your opinion but all the tests that I have done in the
>past clearly indicate that the use of MDB to access a SQL-Server over the
>internet is only, at its best, a kludge.
>For a LAN, the problem is of course much less severe but at the condition
>that the network is not already overcrowded.
>S. L.
>"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:vvgr31l3buv11blqbv3utfk22uhgoa3vab@.
4ax.com...
>|||"Neil" <njones@.pxdy.com> wrote in message
news:Uxa%d.15606$cN6.15135@.newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> In previous discussions about using an MDB file vs. an ADP file as a front
> end for SQL Server, the impression I got was that both were about the
> same, but that the MDB was a more mature technology and less problematic
> than the ADP technology. However, the speed difference I'm noticing with
> the ADP file in regards to this view is significant and is very
> disconcerting re. using an MDB file.
> Any thoughts/comments/suggestions would be appreciated. I've reproduced
> the view's SQL below for reference.
Yes, a few things needs to cleared up here.
First, using a ADP with sql server is kind of like using a automatic truck
vs a truck with a standard shift. If you don't know trucks, and how to shift
gears, then obviously the automatic truck is going to be better. On the
other hand, an advanced driver will get the same performance out of the
standard truck...
If you look at the sql you posted, there is a number of tables involved.
If you just link a bunch of tables to sql server, and then tell ms-access to
"join" them together..you will often get poor performance. I mean, obviously
ms-access/JET has to pull data from multiple tables. With ODBC linked
tables, each table is *often* thought as a separate data source. With
a ADP, that sql is processed server side.
Remember, ms-access/JET has a difficult
time working with multiple ODBC DATA sources when you do a join on them. The
reason of course is that one table might be from Oracle, and the other might
be a local FoxPro table. When you join data through linked tables, you have
to remem ber what the Robot in Lost in space used to say:
"Danger ...Will Robison....Danger"...
When you use a ADP, that whole sql statement is sent to sql server to be
processed.
So, of course, if you used a pass-through query, then both the ADP, and the
ODBC will performance the same.
However, you mentioned that you can't use a pass through. However, you STILL
are using a sql statement that have SEVERAL LINKED tables. ms-access is
going
to have to figure out those links for you!. This should not be a surprise if
you think about what is going on here. However, the simple solution here is
thus to simply create a view on sql server, and then link to that!
Doing this, you will get the same
performance again as the ADP.
So, the lesson here is that you simply have to be MORE conscience of sql
that joins tables together. You can often get away with at last one extra
joined table via link tables..but as a general rule, you have to build a
query
anyway, so, just built a view on the sql side..and you eliminate the
performance
problem.
So, our question is using a ADP going to be faster then a MDB with linked
tables?
answers: Yes, ADP will be faster if you don't pay attention to avoiding
bottle necks, and thinking about what is going on...
So, yes, you do need a bit more caution when using a mdb file and odbc
tables against sql server. Without question, a ADP allows you to be much
more lazy, as ALL
SQL is 100% executed on the sql server side, and thus it is MUCH harder to
screw things up. With a mdb/odbc linked tables, you need extra caution, and
extra effort to avoid bottle necks. In effect, the increased flexibility of
a
mdb/odbc setup means you have more rope and more room to hang yourself!!
However, with a small effort, and some caution, you can EASLEY get the same
performance with a mdb/odbc as you get with a
ADP.
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pleaseNOOSpamKallal@.msn.com
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

administering jobs and targetserversrole

Hi all,
Hoping that someone else has tried to allow non sa people the ability to
administer jobs on a server. My situation is this:
My goal is to allow my developers to create and modify jobs on our
development server. To this end, I have put the developers (who are dbo in
their respective db), in an nt group and put them in the targetserversrole
in msdb on the server. In addition, by changing the role and granting
execute to the add,delete,and update job stored procedure groups and the job
start and stop stored procedures I am able to allow the group to add and
modify jobs, except for one item in the job and that is to set up job
notifications. I have tried granting the add,update and delete notification
group but that doesn't do it as the check boxes are still disabled for the
developers when they look at that part of the job. Does anyone know what I
am missing in this plan? Thanks in advance for any help solving this.
>
> Hi all,
> Hoping that someone else has tried to allow non sa people the ability to
> administer jobs on a server. My situation is this:
> My goal is to allow my developers to create and modify jobs on our
> development server. To this end, I have put the developers (who are dbo
in
> their respective db), in an nt group and put them in the targetserversrole
> in msdb on the server. In addition, by changing the role and granting
> execute to the add,delete,and update job stored procedure groups and the
job
> start and stop stored procedures I am able to allow the group to add and
> modify jobs, except for one item in the job and that is to set up job
> notifications. I have tried granting the add,update and delete
notification
> group but that doesn't do it as the check boxes are still disabled for the
> developers when they look at that part of the job. Does anyone know what
I
> am missing in this plan? Thanks in advance for any help solving this.
>
With SQL Server 2000, you need to be a sysadmin to be able to FULLY
ADMINISTER SQL Agent jobs.
Hope this helps,
Eric Crdenas
Senior support professional
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

administering jobs and targetserversrole

Hi all,
Hoping that someone else has tried to allow non sa people the ability to
administer jobs on a server. My situation is this:
My goal is to allow my developers to create and modify jobs on our
development server. To this end, I have put the developers (who are dbo in
their respective db), in an nt group and put them in the targetserversrole
in msdb on the server. In addition, by changing the role and granting
execute to the add,delete,and update job stored procedure groups and the job
start and stop stored procedures I am able to allow the group to add and
modify jobs, except for one item in the job and that is to set up job
notifications. I have tried granting the add,update and delete notification
group but that doesn't do it as the check boxes are still disabled for the
developers when they look at that part of the job. Does anyone know what I
am missing in this plan? Thanks in advance for any help solving this.>
> Hi all,
> Hoping that someone else has tried to allow non sa people the ability to
> administer jobs on a server. My situation is this:
> My goal is to allow my developers to create and modify jobs on our
> development server. To this end, I have put the developers (who are dbo
in
> their respective db), in an nt group and put them in the targetserversrole
> in msdb on the server. In addition, by changing the role and granting
> execute to the add,delete,and update job stored procedure groups and the
job
> start and stop stored procedures I am able to allow the group to add and
> modify jobs, except for one item in the job and that is to set up job
> notifications. I have tried granting the add,update and delete
notification
> group but that doesn't do it as the check boxes are still disabled for the
> developers when they look at that part of the job. Does anyone know what
I
> am missing in this plan? Thanks in advance for any help solving this.
>
--
With SQL Server 2000, you need to be a sysadmin to be able to FULLY
ADMINISTER SQL Agent jobs.
Hope this helps,
Eric Crdenas
Senior support professional
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

administering jobs and targetserversrole

Hi all,
Hoping that someone else has tried to allow non sa people the ability to
administer jobs on a server. My situation is this:
My goal is to allow my developers to create and modify jobs on our
development server. To this end, I have put the developers (who are dbo in
their respective db), in an nt group and put them in the targetserversrole
in msdb on the server. In addition, by changing the role and granting
execute to the add,delete,and update job stored procedure groups and the job
start and stop stored procedures I am able to allow the group to add and
modify jobs, except for one item in the job and that is to set up job
notifications. I have tried granting the add,update and delete notification
group but that doesn't do it as the check boxes are still disabled for the
developers when they look at that part of the job. Does anyone know what I
am missing in this plan? Thanks in advance for any help solving this.>
> Hi all,
> Hoping that someone else has tried to allow non sa people the ability to
> administer jobs on a server. My situation is this:
> My goal is to allow my developers to create and modify jobs on our
> development server. To this end, I have put the developers (who are dbo
in
> their respective db), in an nt group and put them in the targetserversrole
> in msdb on the server. In addition, by changing the role and granting
> execute to the add,delete,and update job stored procedure groups and the
job
> start and stop stored procedures I am able to allow the group to add and
> modify jobs, except for one item in the job and that is to set up job
> notifications. I have tried granting the add,update and delete
notification
> group but that doesn't do it as the check boxes are still disabled for the
> developers when they look at that part of the job. Does anyone know what
I
> am missing in this plan? Thanks in advance for any help solving this.
>
--
With SQL Server 2000, you need to be a sysadmin to be able to FULLY
ADMINISTER SQL Agent jobs.
Hope this helps,
--
Eric Cárdenas
Senior support professional
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.