Re: Datasets vs Tables

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

From: William Ryan eMVP (dotnetguru_at_comcast.nospam.net)
Date: 05/27/04 

Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 17:17:15 -0400

Whatever. That's such a silly statement to make it's hardly worth arguing.
First off, A dataset doesn't necessarily have anythign to do with a
Database. Totally decoupled BY DESIGN. You can use a DB to fill a dataset,
but you can use an Excel File, a CSV file or half a dozen other things.
What if you had 12 excel sheets in one workbook? What would a genius DBA
recommend here? Loading 12 different datatables? Ooops, that's what we'd
do anyway. Load 12 different datasets? Boy that'd be a great waste or
resources and add a ton of complexity where it wasn't needed.

  Let me ask you a few questions then. First, why do datasets allow for 10
tables, or even 100 if it's so bad? Perhaps this in and of itself isn't
proof but it's just as good an indication as your comment. BTW, I was
trained in both Oracle and SQL Server administration and spent the first
part of my career doing Oracle administration. What in the heck that has to
do with a Dataset is beyond me. Datasets aren't the same thing as databases
although they attempt to follow a similar metaphor. Again though, what does
that have to do with anything?

Also, what if you read in 10 different XML Files, 5 of which were directly
related and 5 that weren't? You do know that XML is a primary way you get
data for datasets right? Or didn't they teach you that in DBA School?

And how exactly would you do a Union in ADO.NET? Fill the same table from
two different sources? Boy that would be fun to update and make a whole lot
of sense.

Actually, I'm sorry for being so abrupt. I just think it's totally
unnecessary for someone who doesn't have a clue to make such silly
statements that just serve to confuse people. You don't know what you are
talking about, even a little bit in this regard. You may be super DBA and if
so, I'm sure there are people over in the SQL Server ng or Oracle NG or
whatever DB you administer that could use some of your brilliance. If you
want to learn, than by all means stick around. Just please refrain from
saying such patently incorrect things.

Bill 

-- 
W.G. Ryan, eMVP
http://forums.devbuzz.com/
http://www.knowdotnet.com/williamryan.html
http://www.msmvps.com/WilliamRyan/
http://www.devbuzz.com/content/zinc_personal_media_center_pg1.asp
"int" <int_pamst@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23klnFOIQEHA.3476@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> The fact that you are bringing in 10 tables (either way you choose) means
> something is architecturally wrong.
>
> The fact that no one even brought that up is a clear indication that there
> are no practicing DBA's who replied to your question.
>
> 10 tables in anything, one has to wonder if there was a better way in the
> first place. I certainly hope it wasn't a JOIN.  I can see a UNION....but
no
> way, a JOIN.......
>
>
>
>
> "Dave Moyle" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B5833E78-77A6-46EB-BAB4-033968D65606@microsoft.com...
> > Thanks guys. Precisely what I needed to know.
>
>
Quantcast