-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Native and OLEDB are *much* faster than ODBC. (For us it
> they were both
> literally an order of magnitude faster.)
Amen to that! There's really no comparison on a loaded server. If
you use ODBC, then you really wasted your money on MSSQL. You could
have stayed w/ MS Access & done about the same for a LOT less...
Not to mention the fact that ODBC has had some nasty memory leaks in
the past...
> Someone may correct me on this, but as near
> as I can tell there really isn't any difference
> between OLEDB and Native. That is, OLEDB is
> essentially "Native" for MS.
For the case of MSSQL 7, OLEDB is native. SQL Server speaks OLEDB as
it's external interface. So if you're using ODBC, your calls need to
go from CF (which I *think* uses ADO, thus OLEDB internally) to ODBC,
back to OLEDB. Three layers to your data. When you use OLEDB,
you're going straight to the server w/ no protocol translations.
> If you are using SQLServer, I really can't think of a good
> reason why you wouldn't want to use OLEDB.
Again I say 'Amen'. They only exception I've found is that CF 4.0.1
is a little messed up calling SQL stored procedures. Any procedure
that returns output parameters has caused us much pain & suffering.
For some cases, calling the stored proc through ODBC made things work
a little better. I haven't a clue why, but....
Best regards,
Zac Bedell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOYlyJQraVoMWBwRBEQLesQCeOZnHg9cymwbgOvaPuiT7s+5Z+8cAoJTR
mX1MXCegptb21iDM9fYU870Z
=yXBd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
