Christopher Dawes wrote:
Hello CF-Talk,
What's better/faster ODBC/OLE DB. I'm using SQL2k on Win2k.
Better: ODBC from a portability point of view, OLE DB from a technical
point of view (see faster).
Faster: OLE DB. In this case (SQL2K) ODBC is actually a layer on top of
OLE DB. That
OLEDB seems to be slightly faster under load, nothing much in it though
under normal conditions.
ODBC drivers can apparantly suffer from memory leaks under certain
circumstances. Although I've never really seen any evidence of this using
SQL server.
OLEDB handles dates and boolean fields
I'm curious as to what differences you've found as I've used both
interchangeably without any problems whatsoever. Could you possibly
enumerate the differences for the benefit of the list.
Cheers,
Steve
OLEDB handles dates and boolean fields slightly differently at times
(perhaps other data
The last problem I had was runnign query a query on a recordset returned via
oledb, all the sql BIT fields were coming back as 'Yes' and 'No' as oppossed
to 0/1.
-Original Message-
From: Steve Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 December 2001 14:28
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: ODBC
Dudley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 December 2001 14:51
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: ODBC or OLE DB
The last problem I had was runnign query a query on a
recordset returned via
oledb, all the sql BIT fields were coming back as 'Yes' and
'No' as oppossed
to 0/1.
-Original Message
5 matches
Mail list logo