Re: Recordset.AddNew and the recordset object's data retaining
From: Matt Neerincx [MS] (mattn_at_online.microsoft.com)
Date: 12/26/04
- Next message: Jim Gamble: "RE: Problem creating access Query on the fly"
- Previous message: Gareth: "using IIF expression to decide what formula to use for the field?"
- In reply to: Jiho Han: "Re: Recordset.AddNew and the recordset object's data retaining"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 11:08:52 -0800
You are on the right track. If you are using ADO batch updates, all of the
records are cached in memory. You need to close the recordset and set it to
nothing, then re-open it periodically.
Matt
"Jiho Han" <jhan@infinityinfo.com> wrote in message
news:354046632380927385921251@msnews.microsoft.com...
>A couple of observations to your approach...
>
> The statement you make about the individual updates not hitting the
> database until the transaction is committed is totally different from my
> understanding of how ADO works. The behavior you specify, if I'm correct,
> has nothing to do with the updates being in a transaction but rather on
> whether you specify LockType to be adLockOptimisticBatch and use
> UpdateBatch method at the end.
>
> But even if things worked as you say it does, it doesn't resolve my issue
> with the client retaining all 10,000 records in memory(I don't mean
> physical memory only - in fact, if they were, it wouldn't be that bad,
> it's when things spill over and the memory starts paging out to disk that
> concerns me). Because until you set the recordset to Nothing, all records
> will sit on the client machine. Maybe I'm overly concerned for nothing.
> But what if it were 100s of thousands of records.
>
> I have been thinking about this for a bit last night and thought of an
> alternate solution that may be ok for me.
> The reason I wanted to avoid Recordset.AddNew, albeit its
> convenience/power of ease, is that in order to avoid the above issue of
> retaining records in memory, I'd indeed have to set the recordset to
> nothing, to dispose them somehow.
>
> Instead, I am thinking to recycle it every certain number of records.
> Obviously this isn't something revolutional, it is how batch jobs are
> traditionally done anyway.
>
> So, I would do something like this:
>
> ' somewhat pseudocode follows
>
> Dim lngCount = 0
> Set objRS = "SELECT * FROM ACCOUNT WHERE 1 = 0" ' This lets me get the
> schema quickly and without fuss.
> Do While Not Source.EOF
> objRS.AddNew
> objRS.Fields("NAME").Value = Source("NAME")
> ...
> Source.MoveToNextLine
>
> If lngCount = 3000 Then ' assuming we recycle every 3000 records
> objRS.Requery
> End If
> Loop
>
> That requery line is the key I think. That is a Close/Dispose and Open in
> one line. I'd adjust the interval depending on how the app performs. I
> haven't tested this out yet.
>
> What do you think?
>
>> How about this:
>>
>> '------------------
>> Set rsMyAdodbRecordset = blah, blah, blah
>> '------------------
>> cnMyAdodbConnection.BeginTrans
>> '------------------
>> Until MyBigFatLoop = IsDone
>> rsMyAdodbRecordset.AddNew
>> rsMyAdodbRecordset("Field1") = blah
>> rsMyAdodbRecordset("Field2") = blah
>> rsMyAdodbRecordset("Field2") = blah
>> rsMyAdodbRecordset.Update
>> Loop
>> '------------------
>> cnMyAdodbConnection.CommitTrans
>> '------------------
>> rsMyAdodbRecordset.Close
>> Set rsMyAdodbRecordset = Nothing
>> '------------------
>> Whaddaya think?
>>
>> I believe you will find that the records are added locally at high
>> speed because the Update won't go back to the database during the
>> transaction. When you close the recordset and set it to Nothing, all
>> memory is reclaimed. You can use transactions with most providers, but
>> not all.
>>
>> Just one thing, you might not want to open the recordset against the
>> entire table or it just might return the whole table to local memory!
>> (Wow! if it is a big table.) Can you do "SELECT * FROM MyTable WHERE
>> MyTable.MyKey = 'nevercanhavethisvalue';" ????
>>
>> Good luck
>>
>> Jim Rodgers
>>
>> "Jiho Han" <jihohan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1102458848.649336.188410@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> I would like to use Recordset object's AddNew method to insert a new
>>> record. However, I am afraid, whenever I do so, the new row I've
>>> inserted will be retained in memory on my client machine on
>>> subsequent inserts.
>>>
>>> Imagine, inserting 10,000 records using either AddNew/Update or
>>> UpdateBatch. AddNew is very convenient and easier to code than
>>> creating a Command object and setting its Parameters collection.
>>> With the former, I don't even have to worry about optimistic
>>> concurrency since it's supported by default although in a batch
>>> scenario such as above, I'd likely turn off concurrency support.
>>>
>>> What I don't want is though, memory bloat because of the new records
>>> I've inserted. Requery or Close/Open will result in additional trips
>>> to the DB which isn't the case with a Command object. Can't have the
>>> cake and eat it too?
>>>
>>> Can someone clarify?
>>> Thanks
>
>
- Next message: Jim Gamble: "RE: Problem creating access Query on the fly"
- Previous message: Gareth: "using IIF expression to decide what formula to use for the field?"
- In reply to: Jiho Han: "Re: Recordset.AddNew and the recordset object's data retaining"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
