If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
accdb vs adp
"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote: Stalking / Harrassment.. uh, what are you talking about? http://www.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm Search Case Records Name Search . Accept key in someone's name. Legally, it never happened. See above Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/ Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/ |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
accdb vs adp
"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote: your autofeupdater runs progressively slower the more queries you have. Rubbish. Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/ Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/ |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
accdb vs adp
"Sylvain Lafontaine" wrote in message
... You can as easily set up a SQL-Server Express local to your machine and make it synchronises over the Internet to a remote database and make it work in both connected and disconnected mode. Sure, it is doable, but you have to setup + install + maintain that local instance of sql server. (and, do you want that running when access is not running?). Setting up sql express local is not always an option. So, there is setup time here. And, you most certainly have to setup some scripting to set that local instance into becoming a proper subscriber. For the rest, SharePoint is a big table, not a database. If you can put everything in a single table then that's fine but for connecting to an existing database with multiple tables interconnected with relationships; not so sure about that. Not quite how SharePoint works. Each table is a separate "list". For SharePoint 2010 + access 2010 it supports cascade delete and RI features like cascade delete restrict between tables (lists). So, we have RI between tables pushed up to SharePoint. Performance is great because you using JET as a local data store for the tables. Sync occurs via a web service that does a difference on the two ends. It is a very slick setup. Even more interesting is that our new data triggers and stored procedures for JET (now called ACE) will also run on SharePoint. So, you can develop that trigger code and build those tables local. Once you publish to SharePoint, the stored procedures and table triggers also move up into the cloud (and, we don't have to re-write them). This also means if you build a web site with access and publish access web forms to the web, then you don't have to re-write the table trigger code and stored procedures. This means that ms-access when used to build a web site with web forms results in a true multi-tier design. I would say that as a rule, I still prefer using sql server with access, but the ease with which users can now use SharePoint and now that SharePoint supports RI between tables, this means a good number of "lesser" skilled access users will likely prefer SharePoint over that of sql server. It just so very easy (this assuming the company has SharePoint). They as a rule will not have to call IT like they do with sql server to get some instance of sql server setup and running. Looking around here, and my personal experience, we see a LOT more access + sql server questions. However, I see some of these users now choosing SharePoint because "they can" and will due to ease of use.. SharePoint can also push out new front ends for those users that don't yet have the desktop "client" access installed. So, SharePoint just solves so many issues of deployment and centralizing the data but gives the user a desktop development experience. -- Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP) Edmonton, Alberta Canada |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
accdb vs adp
Albert D. Kallal wrote:
"Sylvain Lafontaine" wrote in message For the rest, SharePoint is a big table, not a database. If you can put everything in a single table then that's fine but for connecting to an existing database with multiple tables interconnected with relationships; not so sure about that. Not quite how SharePoint works. Each table is a separate "list". I would agree with Sylvain. I did look into the actual SQL Server tables driving the Sharepoint server and indeed, all lists are saved in two tables. One table contains the list's definition/structure while another table contains the list's actual content. I listed the DDL statement for both tables in this post: http://www.utteraccess.com/forum/ind...st&p=192 0240 Mind, Sharepoint may show us a bunch of lists while storing them all in a big table so there's a lot of voodoo going on and is a big reason why many Sharepoint MVPs will say "Do NOT touch SQL Server!" I saw a snippet of a Drupal CMS structure and was just equally horrified by its denormalized structure. I've not gotten a clear reason behind the structure I saw in Sharepoint, but I would never think to consider Sharepoint a relational database in any way. For SharePoint 2010 + access 2010 it supports cascade delete and RI features like cascade delete restrict between tables (lists). So, we have RI between tables pushed up to SharePoint. This is true. This is a big win here for us, I would think. I'm not sure what they pulled but at least it moves the burden from our shoulders to their shoulder. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
accdb vs adp
Aaron,
Sometimes I actually feel sorry for you. It must be hard to make a fool of yourself over and over again, yet you do it, apparently compulsively. I can't help but wonder why you feel compelled to make irresponsible statements like this. And to what end? What do you think you gain by it? It just makes no sense. But, for the sake of clarity and in the hope that we can extract some semblance of logic from these assertion, I would like to give you a chance to explain and, if possible, provide citations for your claims. So, let's clarify what you mean by this: "new features in ADP for every version for the past 5 versions." Past 5 versions of WHAT? It's tempting to assume you MIGHT be referring to new ADP features in MS Access, but then, you really didn't bother to make that clear. What, exactly, do you mean? Are you saying that there were new ADP features in Access 2010, 2007, 2003, 2002 and 2000? Or did you mean something else? Can you, will you, provide citations describing some of those "New Features" for each of the past 5 versions? Doing so might go a long way towards removing the stigma of irresponsibility and irrationality that hangs over all of your posts. Actually, having watched your decent into ever more bitter and disconnected rambling vitriol over several years , I harbor no real expectation, or even hope, that you'll realize how self-destructive your posts have become. Yet, there is always hope, and I can't quite give up on you. Perhaps this will be the time when you finally get it. Is that possible? George "a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" wrote in message ... neglect of ADP? that never happened, kid! there have been new features in ADP for every version for the past 5 versions. there have been new features in SQL Server for every release for the past 5 versions. -Aaron On Feb 23, 10:53 am, "Tony Toews [MVP]" wrote: "David W. Fenton" wrote: But all of this will change 2-3 years from now, with the release of Access 15, which apparently is going to address the neglect of ADPs in the last two releases. That isn't enough to convince me that it's wise to trash an MDB app and replace it with an ADP even then, but it's worth keeping in mind (i.e., the investment in moving to ADP could pay off 2 or 3 years down the road; on the other hand, the Access 15 ADPs could be sufficiently different to make current ADPs problematic). I hadn't heard this. Any URLs? Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Tony's Main MS Access pages -http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog -http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files updated seehttp://www.autofeupdater.com/ Granite Fleet Managerhttp://www.granitefleet.com/ |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
accdb vs adp
"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" wrote in
message ... your autofeupdater runs progressively slower the more queries you have. keeping all your data and queries in one place- where they belong - on a database server-- is a much more effective and efficient method. ====================== Let me explain database design to you, as you seem to be under the impression that you actually know something. MVPs, including those in SQL-Server, know that is a misapprehension on your part. No matter where a query is run, it's speed is more determined by the design of the tables and relationships, and the query design, than what the database engine is. For small tables (generally under 100,000 rows) queries are often faster using JET than SQL-Server, given the same equipment and environment. Generally, the most powerful machine which is devoted to the job, is the speed determiner. That's not always true, especially with smaller datasets. As networks get even faster, that becomes even less important. SQL-Server is an important tool used by most Microsoft designers, including Access MVPs. There are many instances where JET is the better tool for the job. If you regarded your clients (if you really had any) as much as we do ours, you'd pay attention to your their best interest, instead your prejudices and misconceptions. -- Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP http://www.datastrat.com http://www.mvps.org/access http://www.accessmvp.com |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
accdb vs adp
"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" wrote in message ... neglect of ADP? that never happened, kid! there have been new features in ADP for every version for the past 5 versions. there have been new features in SQL Server for every release for the past 5 versions. -Aaron On Feb 23, 10:53 am, "Tony Toews [MVP]" wrote: "David W. Fenton" wrote: But all of this will change 2-3 years from now, with the release of Access 15, which apparently is going to address the neglect of ADPs in the last two releases. That isn't enough to convince me that it's wise to trash an MDB app and replace it with an ADP even then, but it's worth keeping in mind (i.e., the investment in moving to ADP could pay off 2 or 3 years down the road; on the other hand, the Access 15 ADPs could be sufficiently different to make current ADPs problematic). I hadn't heard this. Any URLs? Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Tony's Main MS Access pages -http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog -http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files updated seehttp://www.autofeupdater.com/ Granite Fleet Managerhttp://www.granitefleet.com/ |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
accdb vs adp
Jet has no benefit, it causes slower performance and bigger table
scans. Sprocs, Views, Functions are thousands of times more powerful. SQL Server - out of the box- allows every user to have a different copy of the same object if you want. It's just completely false to claim that Jet has any benefit over SQL Server. -Aaron On Feb 23, 8:21*pm, "Arvin Meyer [MVP]" wrote: "a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" wrote in ... your autofeupdater runs progressively slower the more queries you have. keeping all your data and queries in one place- where they belong - on a database server-- is a much more effective and efficient method. ====================== Let me explain database design to you, as you seem to be under the impression that you actually know something. MVPs, including those in SQL-Server, know that is a misapprehension on your part. No matter where a query is run, it's speed is more determined by the design of the tables and relationships, and the query design, than what the database engine is. For small tables (generally under 100,000 rows) queries are often faster using JET than SQL-Server, given the same equipment and environment. Generally, the most powerful machine which is devoted to the job, is the speed determiner. That's not always true, especially with smaller datasets. As networks get even faster, that becomes even less important. SQL-Server is an important tool used by most Microsoft designers, including Access MVPs. There are many instances where JET is the better tool for the job. If you regarded your clients (if you really had any) as much as we do ours, you'd pay attention to your their best interest, instead your prejudices and misconceptions. -- Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVPhttp://www.datastrat.comhttp://www.mvps.org/accesshttp://www.accessmvp.com |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
accdb vs adp
new features in ADP for every
version for the past 5 versions." Past 5 versions of WHAT? Access 2000 - First version Access 2002 - better UDF / SQL Server support Access 2003 - pivotTables Access 2007 - SQL 2005, half dozen other features Access 2010 - SQL 2008 support There you are-- new ADP funcitonality in each of the past 5 versions On Feb 23, 6:14*pm, "GP George" wrote: Aaron, Sometimes I actually feel sorry for you. It must be hard to make a fool of yourself over and over again, yet you do it, apparently compulsively. *I can't help but wonder why you feel compelled to make irresponsible statements like this. And to what end? What do you think you gain by it? It just makes no sense. But, for the sake of clarity and in the hope that we can extract some semblance of logic from these assertion, I would like to give you a chance to explain and, if possible, provide citations for your claims. So, let's clarify what you mean by this: "new features in ADP for every version for the past 5 versions." Past 5 versions of WHAT? It's tempting to assume you MIGHT be referring to new ADP features in MS Access, but then, you really didn't bother to make that clear. What, exactly, do you mean? Are you saying that there were new ADP features in Access 2010, 2007, 2003, 2002 and 2000? Or did you mean something else? Can you, will you, provide citations describing some of those "New Features" for each of the past 5 versions? Doing so might go a long way towards removing the stigma of irresponsibility and irrationality that hangs over all of your posts. Actually, having watched your decent into ever more bitter and disconnected rambling vitriol over several years , I harbor no real expectation, or even hope, that you'll realize how self-destructive your posts have become. Yet, there is always hope, and I can't quite give up on you. Perhaps this will be the time when you finally get it. Is that possible? George "a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" wrote in ... neglect of ADP? that never happened, kid! there have been new features in ADP for every version for the past 5 versions. there have been new features in SQL Server for every release for the past 5 versions. -Aaron On Feb 23, 10:53 am, "Tony Toews [MVP]" wrote: "David W. Fenton" wrote: But all of this will change 2-3 years from now, with the release of Access 15, which apparently is going to address the neglect of ADPs in the last two releases. That isn't enough to convince me that it's wise to trash an MDB app and replace it with an ADP even then, but it's worth keeping in mind (i.e., the investment in moving to ADP could pay off 2 or 3 years down the road; on the other hand, the Access 15 ADPs could be sufficiently different to make current ADPs problematic). I hadn't heard this. *Any URLs? Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Tony's Main MS Access pages -http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog -http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files * updated seehttp://www.autofeupdater.com/ Granite Fleet Managerhttp://www.granitefleet.com/ |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
accdb vs adp
look at the code dude
making your users wait an extra 5 seconds while you copy over lookup tables, queries? what a joke dude 'the worst software ever written' because it's more efficient to keep all your tables in one place- where they belong- a database server that supports SMP, X64, etc -Aaron On Feb 23, 4:01*pm, "Tony Toews [MVP]" wrote: "a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" wrote: your autofeupdater runs progressively slower the more queries you have. Rubbish. Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Tony's Main MS Access pages -http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog -http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files * updated seehttp://www.autofeupdater.com/ Granite Fleet Managerhttp://www.granitefleet.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|