Re: DAO vs ADO

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

From: Mary Chipman (mchip_at_online.microsoft.com)
Date: 08/23/04

  • Next message: cliffG: "Error 2121 on report" 
    Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:44:43 -0500

    I didn't mean that you'd necessarily *agree* with Celko, any more than
    the SQLS MVPs do, just that it would be interesting :-)

    I meant SQLS 2000 compatibility mode, not Access.No version of Access
    will support the new SQLS 2005 features.

    SQLS 2005 probably is a disappointment for many who were looking for
    features other than developer-oriented functionality. But the emphasis
    in this version has been on managed code and getting the CLR hosted
    inside the SQLS engine. There is some new SQL syntax, like
    Access-style xtab queries, and other features like notifications,
    database mirroring, etc. However, DB2 also looks pretty interesting as
    well. We shall see.

    --Mary

    On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:01:52 +0100, "Craig Alexander Morrison"
    <reply@newsgroups.com> wrote:

    >Mary
    >
    >> If you're interested, these days you'll get the livliest discussions
    >> on relational design in the microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming
    >> newsgroup, where Joe Celko livens up many a thread.
    >
    >In the past I have had my differences with Joe as he comes from the SQL side
    >rather than the Relational side. Some may not be aware that SQL is not
    >(wholly) relational. One shudders to think what CLR could do it could even
    >allow Joe and I to agree on something. (vbg) On the 10 year old thread I
    >mentioned earlier Joe and I came to blows on the problems associated with
    >not defining a Primary Key. Our disagreement was based on him coming from
    >the SQL side and me from the Relational side, we were both right in our own
    >terms. I think Joe now agrees more with the relational side. Having had a
    >look at his recent contributions on the above newsgroup I find little to
    >disagree with. Mind you, give me time. (vbg)
    >
    >Regarding little ol' Access, whilst the architecture may be 10 years old it
    >is (roughly) based on Relational Theory which is over 30 years old and is
    >still relevant.
    >
    >> Your Access FE should work fine with SQLS 2005 as long as you're
    >> running in 2000 compatibility mode.
    >
    >What's the problem with 2002/2003 in this respect?
    >
    >> It's unclear at this point if Access will ever have full support for new
    >> features like CLR assemblies and UDTs. There's only so much you
    >> can tack on to what is essentially an ancient architecture.
    >
    >However a tool like Access is required to allow users and database
    >developers to be able to harness the power of the new database engines. We
    >certainly do not want to have to rely on programmers with little
    >understanding of set theory and their love of record numbers and "so-called"
    >surrogates.
    >
    >Note: A true surrogate (from say a hashing algorithm) is hidden to the user
    >and that includes the developer, it is system generated and internal. It
    >allows the database developer to pick the real natural Primary Key even if
    >that is fairly complex and the system hashes this to some internal value
    >that is then used to refer to this value in all relationships.
    >
    >> How much has really changed in the last 10 years?
    >
    >Very little on the theory side. If anything the theory is becoming better
    >implemented, I may have to leave SQL Server 2005 out of that generalisation
    >though. I am not sure if SQL Server 2005 has blown it or not, anyway I am
    >also playing with the latest version of DB2 (UDB 8.2 aka Stinger due for
    >general release on 17 September) which seems to be streets ahead. DB2 is
    >where I came in to this field nearly 20 ago, a homecoming may be in the
    >offing. :-)
    >
    >> Most of the folks from the old Compuserve Access MVP crowd has moved
    >> on to either .NET or SQL Server or both, except Viescas, who I believe
    >> is still active in the Access ng's. My last book was several years ago
    >> now, but the basic concepts of how to build an efficient Access-SQL
    >> app haven't changed since then, so it's still useful info for many
    >> people. >
    >
    >Well I thought that SQL Server 2000 was a promising start but SQL Server
    >2005 looks rather disappointing after a whole 5 years in the works. DB2
    >still looks like the only serious contender (if you forget about Oracle and
    >I am still trying to. (g))
    >
    >Access is a wonderful front end development tool for database developers
    >maybe we could let all the programmers go and use whatever the latest
    >flavour of the month is while we remain using a tool that started out pretty
    >good from the start and has improved ever since but less and less with each
    >"good" release as it was pretty strong by Access 97. There was hope for
    >the ADP in 2002 which I had hoped would make access to SQL Server 2000 more
    >like using the next version of Jet. We sort of referred to SQL Server 2000
    >as Jet 5.
    >
    >P.S. My brother is a programmer who started out at IBM developing OS/2 and
    >is now up to his neck in .NET and all that and we do get on, honest. :-) I
    >like programmers, some of my best friends are programmers but if they touch
    >my database design they are dead! (vbg) And if they trawl through a
    >recordset when they could have used SQL they are taken out back and beaten
    >to within an inch of their life. (vbg) Relational Theory Hard but Fair. :-)
    >
    >DAO or ADO I try not to use either as much as possible, SQL will do just
    >fine for me most of the time. RQL would be better!
    >
    >> I probably won't write another one any time soon. It's a lot
    >> of work to do a good one with original research that isn't just a
    >> rehash of the help files. Even though our book is still selling, the
    >> hourly rate for the time we expended compares unfavorably with the
    >> hourly rate for flipping burgers :-)
    >
    >The problem with perfectionists is that they damage their hourly rate by
    >being unprepared to a slap dash job. :-)
    >
    >All the best.

  • Next message: cliffG: "Error 2121 on report"

    Relevant Pages

    • CREATE AGGREGATE failed because type Concatenate does not conform to UDAGG specification due to meth
      ... Now register the assembly and the aggregate in the SQL Server database you want ... I'm trying to do some CLR integration with sql server 2005. ...
      (microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming)
    • Re: How do i move an SQLDatabase to another location?
      ... I went to my clients and installed SQL Server ... Express and copied my database to the same location it was in while i was ... knowing that i can bring a database with me and install ...
      (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.adonet)
    • Re: New to Windows CE Development - Have some questions
      ... validating against the main database, or querying the database during data ... iterate through the SQL CE table and create new entries in the ... SQL Server database that correspond. ... >>> not connected to the Enterprise. ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsce.app.development)
    • RE: Logging in in background
      ... wold take all kinds of modifictions as I'd need to be checking that each SQL ... my database and all have connection strings associated with them. ... I suspect that there is also an issue on the SQL Server side as I keep ...
      (microsoft.public.access.modulesdaovba)
    • RE: SBS 2003 Unable to connect to database STS_Config
      ... MSDE to store SharePoint uses the MSSQL$SharePoint database, ... SharePoint named instance to full SQL. ... You cannot upgrade the Monitoring instance to SQL ... What I see is the SQL server group and under ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)