Re: Database Sync Question
- From: wackyphill@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:33:07 -0700
Which; SqlDependency?Yeah.
And I want to minimize network traffic.
So why drag an entire table over? Keep the data at the server, and
just hold conversations with it - either to the database server
itself, or a web-service.
Well to keep the UI responsive my thought was to simply load the table
up front when the app starts. Then maybe save the table to disk when
it exits. Then the next time it starts, load from the saved file and
only pull down any changes from the DB which would likely be much
smaller than the whole table we had to download the first time.
If you really must do it your way, then a delete trigger that pumps
into a "deleted" table may be of use - you can use the identity in the
table to get just the updates you haven't seen, and can purge any
values older than your supported range - perhaps half an hour. Then in
the same way that you query for updates/inserts, just query for
deletes too.
Yeah thats an interesting idea.
It's not like I wouldn't rather query the DB everytime I needed
something. It would be easier I agree. Its just that the process is
very time consuming given the UI and the bandwidth available. So I was
just investigating other ideas. We're talking about maybe 4 tables w/
aprox 500 records in each. Not a massive DB. I felt caching it on the
client given their distance from the DB (over a WAN) might make sense.
.
- References:
- Database Sync Question
- From: wackyphill
- Re: Database Sync Question
- From: Marc Gravell
- Re: Database Sync Question
- From: wackyphill
- Re: Database Sync Question
- From: Marc Gravell
- Database Sync Question
- Prev by Date: Re: Distinguishing between data passed by vale or by ref.
- Next by Date: Re: Break thread sleep
- Previous by thread: Re: Database Sync Question
- Next by thread: binding an assembly by using config-file and codebase - problem
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
