Re: client side cursor vs server side cursor regarding memory used
- From: "Stephen Howe" <stephenPOINThoweATtns-globalPOINTcom>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:48:08 +0100
> For example, I think that since
> the client side cursor keeps track of the cursor on the client side, it'd
> retain all the records retrieved so far whereas the server side cursor
might
> not.
Client-sided is expensive in terms of memory for the application.
It has to build up the entire Recordset in client-sided memory.
It helps if you economise in terms of LockType.
For example, if you are only going to read from the Recordset, use
adLockReadOnly.
There is only one CursorType : adOpenStatic
Server-sided is cheap in terms of memory for the application as the server
takes the strain.
Memory consumed is whatever the CacheSize is + some overhead for CursorType
and LockType.
adLockReadOnly is the cheapest LockType
adOpenForwardOnly is the cheapest CursorType (but very limited in what
functionality it give you - no MovePrevious, no RecordCount).
In general - don't use a more expensive cursor than you need - it will
consume more resources to setup and maintain.
Stephen Howe
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: client side cursor vs server side cursor regarding memory used
- Next by Date: How to revert from MDAC 2.8 to 2.7?
- Previous by thread: client side cursor vs server side cursor regarding memory used
- Next by thread: Re: client side cursor vs server side cursor regarding memory used
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
