On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 08:47:18 -0700, Avi Nahir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But if I don't install Access (or that free SQL Server I always keep
>forgetting its name), how do I do replication?
So I would install another database server (if you can justify this cost)
which uses one way replication fr
First, thank you Lee, Noam, Kojiishi, Michael and Greg for your patience,
effort and help!
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 06:30:27 -0700, Lee H Fuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>It sounds like what you really have is a "reporting" requirement, so
>wouldn't it be neater to have a replicated copy of the da
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002 23:30:49 -0700, Avi Nahir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>IMHO, however, it makes more sense to use a local "helper" database when
>the following is true:
>
>You want to reduce the load on the database server.
>The data doesn't change a lot, so that sending it to clients pays for
>i
Hi Noam,
You are correct, of course. However sending-on-the-wire and local-database
vrs. in-memory-Dataset are independant issues.
Thanks! Avi
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 07:26:51 -0700, Noam Arbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Avi,
>
>I think the main point in the in-memory dataset, is the ability to s
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002 07:20:53 -0700, Avi Nahir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Avi,
I think the main point in the in-memory dataset, is the ability to send it
across the wire. I can have a remote server, WebSerrvice or other type of
server create a recordset and transfer it to a client over http (throu
tired 7/1/02
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Avi Nahir
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [DOTNET] DataSets naive question
Thanks for the feedback.
Thinking this through I think Access has two advantages over an
in-memory DataSet. First, it is persistant. It
Thanks for the feedback.
Thinking this through I think Access has two advantages over an in-memory
DataSet. First, it is persistant. It doesn't go away when the user turns
off her computer. Second, data is stored and accessed in very efficient
manner (i.e. indexes) which is even more critical whe
>The basic thing that bugs me: Being "in memory" is not enough merit for a
>technology! I must be missing something. What? What is the advantage of
>using an in memory Dataset as opposed to the scenario above?
I think Microsoft were going to do a fully-fledged IMDB, but it never
happened. Here's
f Of Avi Nahir
> Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 9:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [DOTNET] DataSets naive question
>
>
> Thanks, Greg.
>
> I undestand this "in memory" issue. However, what I'm thinking is: You are
> supposed to take the data from a
juni 2002 16:21
Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ämne: Re: [DOTNET] DataSets naive question
Thanks, Greg.
I undestand this "in memory" issue. However, what I'm thinking is: You are
supposed to take the data from a 'big' (say, SQL Server) database, work on
it in memory u
Thanks, Greg.
I undestand this "in memory" issue. However, what I'm thinking is: You are
supposed to take the data from a 'big' (say, SQL Server) database, work on
it in memory using a Dataset, and then return the modifications. But what
if, instead, you take the data, store it in an Access (Jet)
> Should I use a Dataset or a local MS-Access database?
>
> The basis for my question: The dataset is touted as an in-memory database:
> It has schema, data, relations, filtering, sorting, and persistence
> (through XML serialization). So, if it is "like" a database, why not
> use "the real thing"
Hi all,
Should I use a Dataset or a local MS-Access database?
The basis for my question: The dataset is touted as an in-memory database:
It has schema, data, relations, filtering, sorting, and persistence
(through XML serialization). So, if it is "like" a database, why not
use "the real thing"?
13 matches
Mail list logo
