|
|
Posted by david epsom dot com dot au on 12/05/44 11:33
> Also, I believe that Access can only work with 25 connections
The multi-user characterisation for Access 95 used 32 automated
workstations, which hit the database a bit harder than 32 human
users would.
> UPDATE table SET column = 'value'
> table contained approx. 7000 records. The packet count for
> this with SQL Server was exactly 9. When using MS Access as
None of my clients would let you near their SQL Servers!
If you have your 25 (min) SQL Server users doing updates
like that, all the real users will be out to lunch while
they wait for their applications to respond!
Building applications for 25 users means not writing
queries like that.
(david)
""Ol!v!ι"" <stevenlangenaken-at-@hotmail-dot-.com> wrote in message
news:1133407805.181378@seven.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be...
> NickName wrote:
>> Probably this question has been asked hundreds of times and yet net
>> search has not generated satisfactory enough answer, at least, to me.
>> And OK, let's assume your organization has more than 200 employees,
>> just one measure to indicate that it's not small and data processing
>> needs are quite extensive (for both OLTP and OLAP).
>>
>> We've heard so much about concurrency support, stability and
>> performance. Are there any real persuasive paper out there to talk
>> about it? Now, let me also put it in another perspective, say, you're
>> a Microsoft sql server sales guy or gal for that matter for new
>> accounts. What you got?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
> One good reason is that using SQL Server is that the network load is much
> less than compared to using linked tables.
> I've executed the following query from the VBA-Direct window:
> UPDATE table SET column = 'value'
> table contained approx. 7000 records. The packet count for executing this
> with SQL Server was exactly 9. When using MS Access as a backend, the
> packet count was more than 65000.
> Also, I believe that Access can only work with 25 connections at most,
> while SQL Server can have virtually unlimited connections. Please correct
> me when I'm wrong.
> When using the database locally (i.e. not over a network), upgrading to
> SQL Server would be extra overhead imho.
>
> Oliviι
[Back to original message]
|