MS says that all tables should live in SQL (for performance reasons)
in [General]
|
From: Mark Andrews on 21 Apr 2010 18:18 I think everyone here thinks SQL Server is a great product. I think everyone here also thinks Microsoft Access is a great product. and yes linked tables (to SQL server data) used in Access is not always the best way to go. Sometimes pass-thru queries are the way to go, sometimes Access is not the right tool. However there still are a variety of applications that can be built in Access. Aren't there Microsoft SQL server newsgroups you should be posting at, you seem to be fixated on SQL Server and how it should be used for everything? If you have stock in Microsoft they make money off Microsoft Office as well as SQL Server so no worries. You could go after the .net developers and try and make sure they use SQL Server or those PHP people using MySQL. Just a thought? -- Mark Andrews RPT Software http://www.rptsoftware.com http://www.donationmanagementsoftware.com "a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <aaron.kempf(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2966ac44-e6f1-422f-b5e2-946bf7f8b146(a)n11g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > make sure that all Access tables get moved to SQL Server to increase > performance. Creating queries against a mix of Access (Jet) and SQL > Server using linked tables can be very resource-intensive. > > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc917601.aspx
From: a a r o n . k e m p f on 22 Apr 2010 10:35 I think that linked tables are just flat out stupid stupid stupid as is anyone who uses a product that corrupts data most of the mental midgets around here complain about 'not having local storage' as an option for ADP and I just think that it's sad that people think that they're smarter than Microsoft On Apr 21, 3:18 pm, "Mark Andrews" <mandrews___NOSPAM...(a)rptsoftware.com> wrote: > I think everyone here thinks SQL Server is a great product. > I think everyone here also thinks Microsoft Access is a great product. > > and yes linked tables (to SQL server data) used in Access is not always the > best way to go. > Sometimes pass-thru queries are the way to go, sometimes Access is not the > right tool. > > However there still are a variety of applications that can be built in > Access. > > Aren't there Microsoft SQL server newsgroups you should be posting at, you > seem to > be fixated on SQL Server and how it should be used for everything? If you > have stock > in Microsoft they make money off Microsoft Office as well as SQL Server so > no worries. > > You could go after the .net developers and try and make sure they use SQL > Server or those PHP people > using MySQL. Just a thought? > > -- > Mark Andrews > RPT Softwarehttp://www.rptsoftware.comhttp://www.donationmanagementsoftware.com > > "a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <aaron.ke...(a)gmail.com> wrote in > messagenews:2966ac44-e6f1-422f-b5e2-946bf7f8b146(a)n11g2000prh.googlegroups..com... > > > make sure that all Access tables get moved to SQL Server to increase > > performance. Creating queries against a mix of Access (Jet) and SQL > > Server using linked tables can be very resource-intensive. > > >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc917601.aspx
From: Larry Linson on 24 Apr 2010 00:47 You did not address the out-of-date article you quoted, nor that you quote out of context to support your point of view that was/is not supported by the statements in that article. Actually, most of those around here (whatever their mental height may be) point out that the Access team at Microsoft recommends MDB or ACCDB wtih linked tables as the method of choice... the Microsoft push for ADP is as old as the out-of-date article you cite. So you are sad about yourself... thinking that you are smarter than Microsoft? But, how thoughtful it was of you to, once again, give us the benefit of your superior knowledge and wisdom. Larry Linson "a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <aaron.kempf(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:10853104-5bc3-45d1-a7c9-ac67ea892664(a)y38g2000prb.googlegroups.com... I think that linked tables are just flat out stupid stupid stupid as is anyone who uses a product that corrupts data most of the mental midgets around here complain about 'not having local storage' as an option for ADP and I just think that it's sad that people think that they're smarter than Microsoft On Apr 21, 3:18 pm, "Mark Andrews" <mandrews___NOSPAM...(a)rptsoftware.com> wrote: > I think everyone here thinks SQL Server is a great product. > I think everyone here also thinks Microsoft Access is a great product. > > and yes linked tables (to SQL server data) used in Access is not always > the > best way to go. > Sometimes pass-thru queries are the way to go, sometimes Access is not the > right tool. > > However there still are a variety of applications that can be built in > Access. > > Aren't there Microsoft SQL server newsgroups you should be posting at, you > seem to > be fixated on SQL Server and how it should be used for everything? If you > have stock > in Microsoft they make money off Microsoft Office as well as SQL Server so > no worries. > > You could go after the .net developers and try and make sure they use SQL > Server or those PHP people > using MySQL. Just a thought? > > -- > Mark Andrews > RPT > Softwarehttp://www.rptsoftware.comhttp://www.donationmanagementsoftware.com > > "a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <aaron.ke...(a)gmail.com> wrote > in > messagenews:2966ac44-e6f1-422f-b5e2-946bf7f8b146(a)n11g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > make sure that all Access tables get moved to SQL Server to increase > > performance. Creating queries against a mix of Access (Jet) and SQL > > Server using linked tables can be very resource-intensive. > > >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc917601.aspx
From: a a r o n . k e m p f on 24 Apr 2010 12:08 OUT OF DATE? SQL SERVER HAS ALWAYS BEEN SUPERIOR, KID TIRED OF CRASHING? MOVE TO SQL SERVER / ADP TIRED OF LINKING? MOVE TO SQL SERVER / ADP TIRED OF CORRUPTION? MOVE TO SQL SERVER / ADP TIRED OF DATASILOITIS? MOVE TO SQL SERVER / ADP On Apr 23, 9:47 pm, "Larry Linson" <boun...(a)localhost.not> wrote: > You did not address the out-of-date article you quoted, nor that you quote > out of context to support your point of view that was/is not supported by > the statements in that article. > > Actually, most of those around here (whatever their mental height may be) > point out that the Access team at Microsoft recommends MDB or ACCDB wtih > linked tables as the method of choice... the Microsoft push for ADP is as > old as the out-of-date article you cite. > > So you are sad about yourself... thinking that you are smarter than > Microsoft? But, how thoughtful it was of you to, once again, give us the > benefit of your superior knowledge and wisdom. > > Larry Linson > > "a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <aaron.ke...(a)gmail.com> wrote in > messagenews:10853104-5bc3-45d1-a7c9-ac67ea892664(a)y38g2000prb.googlegroups..com... > I think that linked tables are just flat out stupid stupid stupid > as is anyone who uses a product that corrupts data > > most of the mental midgets around here complain about 'not having > local storage' as an option for ADP > > and I just think that it's sad that people think that they're smarter > than Microsoft > > On Apr 21, 3:18 pm, "Mark Andrews" > > <mandrews___NOSPAM...(a)rptsoftware.com> wrote: > > I think everyone here thinks SQL Server is a great product. > > I think everyone here also thinks Microsoft Access is a great product. > > > and yes linked tables (to SQL server data) used in Access is not always > > the > > best way to go. > > Sometimes pass-thru queries are the way to go, sometimes Access is not the > > right tool. > > > However there still are a variety of applications that can be built in > > Access. > > > Aren't there Microsoft SQL server newsgroups you should be posting at, you > > seem to > > be fixated on SQL Server and how it should be used for everything? If you > > have stock > > in Microsoft they make money off Microsoft Office as well as SQL Server so > > no worries. > > > You could go after the .net developers and try and make sure they use SQL > > Server or those PHP people > > using MySQL. Just a thought? > > > -- > > Mark Andrews > > RPT > > Softwarehttp://www.rptsoftware.comhttp://www.donationmanagementsoftware..com > > > "a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <aaron.ke...(a)gmail.com> wrote > > in > > messagenews:2966ac44-e6f1-422f-b5e2-946bf7f8b146(a)n11g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > make sure that all Access tables get moved to SQL Server to increase > > > performance. Creating queries against a mix of Access (Jet) and SQL > > > Server using linked tables can be very resource-intensive. > > > >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc917601.aspx
From: Larry Linson on 25 Apr 2010 21:39 "a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <aaron.kempf(a)gmail.com> wrote > OUT OF DATE? > SQL SERVER HAS ALWAYS BEEN SUPERIOR, KID > TIRED OF CRASHING? MOVE TO SQL SERVER / ADP > TIRED OF LINKING? MOVE TO SQL SERVER / ADP > TIRED OF CORRUPTION? MOVE TO SQL SERVER / ADP > TIRED OF DATASILOITIS? MOVE TO SQL SERVER / ADP There are many occasions when it is appropriate to store one's data in a Server database, just as there are many (equally or more) occasions when it is appropropriate to store one's data in a Jet or ACE database. Intelligent DBAs and developers have no difficulty determining which they should use. SQL Server is a good server database; so are many other server databases. ADP is no longer recommended by the Access team at Redmond as the front-end of choice for SQL Server. Instead they recommend using MDB or ACCDB and linking to the SQL Server database via ODBC, which approach will also work nicely for those organizations which have chosen some other ODBC-compliant database as their corporate or company standard. The citation has been posted here many times. Shouting by typing all caps does not make your claims valid. Larry Linson Microsoft Office Access MVP
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Lookupform(s) (correction!) Next: Compile Error : Type Mismatch |