|
|
Posted by Andy O'Neill on 10/01/27 11:24
"Scott McDaniel" <scott@infotrakkerDELETEME.com> wrote in message
news:D_-dneH90r1TQJjeRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> Thanks for your reply. We considered moving totally to SQL Server, but
> users will not always have Internet access. There are several text columns
> (none over 500 characters) and no image columns, pretty much plain jane
> numeric and text data.
My inclination would be to write my own code to do the updating.
I'd store a last connection timestamp in the access database and a timestamp
on each change record.
Apply all updates >= last connection, update last connection....
The complication is if the users can stick a change in via the web interface
since their last connection on their laptop.
You'd need to keep a change log and apply this to the sql "master" database
in order of changes.
Not an issue if there's only one given user can change their own subset of
data and they only ever use the one laptop may or may not be connected.
Which is usually the case for salesmen.
I've worked on stuff where the salesmen would pull a local copy of their
data onto a laptop as they went off travelling. They then would make
changes as they were at client sites. Occaisionally, they get a chance to
connect remotely and push these changes to the main database.
--
Regards,
Andy O'Neill
>
> "Simon Hayes" <sql@hayes.ch> wrote in message
> news:1124456267.588573.89760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "reliably" - if the workstations connect
>> to the MSSQL server, then they're just another client, so they will be
>> as reliable as your network, application code etc allow. And a hundred
>> rows is a very small amount of data, unless perhaps you have to work
>> with text or image columns.
>>
>> Personally, I would consider removing Access altogether, and use a
>> single MSSQL database - no sync required, one point of backup and
>> recovery, better security etc. But of course that may be a bigger
>> change than you're willing or able to make in your environment.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|