Re: visual basic.net standard 2003 (ado.net)
From: John Doe (JohnDoe_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 08/30/04
- Next message: Doug Stoltz: "Re: sql connection errors as usage increases"
- Previous message: Peter: "Re: SQL Relations vs. DataRelations?"
- In reply to: ado.net: "Re: visual basic.net standard 2003 (ado.net)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:07:02 -0700
There is virtually an infinite number of ways that developers can go about
building any given piece of software. It is only logical that Microsoft (or
any company, for that matter) would start by making sure that their product
supports development methods that people are likely to use, and ones that
will yield good results (code that is somewhat efficient and scales
relatively well).
It is also only logical that Microsoft will assume that developers will
normalize the data used by their applications (to at least some extent),
since this is one of the first things that one must do in order to develop
efficient, scalable, data-related code). When Microsoft changes a design from
one version to the next, it is only logical that they will add features that
will allow developers to develop even better code than the code that they are
currently developing (not worse). The only time it would make sense for a
company like Microsoft to add support for something like more than 100
columns is if there were a great demand for it by customers.
> Normalizing my database did not answer my question. As to why did Microsoft
> limit to 100 fields on the data adapter wizard, but give the ability for more
> than 100 fields in a single database table. It would take massive coding
> changes to restructure my database. It was working fine in VB6 with DAO. I
> still do not understand this limit. Are there any plans by Microsoft to
> increase the limit. Or is this a bug? Could you clarify further. Thanks.
>
> "William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote:
>
> > I suggest that you look more closely at your database design. I virtually
> > all cases when we've seen designs with this many columns it's because the
> > database is not normalized. Since an average (albeit wide) normalized
> > relational table might have 20 or 30 columns, 100 is excessive.
> >
> > --
> > ____________________________________
> > William (Bill) Vaughn
> > Author, Mentor, Consultant
> > Microsoft MVP
> > www.betav.com
> > Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> > __________________________________
> >
> > "ADO data adapter limit" <ADO data adapter limit@discussions.microsoft.com>
> > wrote in message news:D486C190-4B8C-4CA1-AFFB-B86D1B424BF2@microsoft.com...
> > > Why is there a 100 field limit when using the adapter wizard to configure
> > > a
> > > data adapter. I have a database that has over 200 fields and need the
> > > ability
> > > to add, update and delete. The wizard fails with an error message "There
> > > were
> > > errors configuring the data adapter". I do not understand how Microsoft
> > > can
> > > provide the ability to have 200+ fields in Access or SQL and not support
> > > them
> > > with ADO that they have been highly promoting. I never had a problem with
> > > DAO
> > > using VB6. What's up! frustrated with .net
> >
> >
> >
- Next message: Doug Stoltz: "Re: sql connection errors as usage increases"
- Previous message: Peter: "Re: SQL Relations vs. DataRelations?"
- In reply to: ado.net: "Re: visual basic.net standard 2003 (ado.net)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|