Updating database (UPDATE vs. rs.updatebatch)

Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Updating database (UPDATE vs. rs.updatebatch)

  1. #1
    Peter Garner Guest

    Default Updating database (UPDATE vs. rs.updatebatch)

    Is it better to update data in a database using a disconnected recordset, or issuing an UPDATE statement directly on the server. When looking at most of the examples on MSDN they tend to use disconnected recordsets.<BR>

  2. #2
    SPG Guest

    Default Generally, Command Your Database

    Generally, you&#039re better off sending an update command to your database. This is so you don&#039t have to hold an updating cursor (gnaw chew) on an open recordset (munch chomp) in addition to the connection [or worse, having to reconnect] which is (swallow digest) taking up system resources.<BR><BR>I, literally, never have a recordset open for more than ~4 lines of code -- half of which are figuring out whether I got any records out of the query or not.<BR><BR>.GetRows is your friend. .Execute is your friend. Using huge database-native objects in your web server is not your friend.<BR><BR>HiH

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1969

    Default RE: You Ought to publish this in an FAQ!

    Very informative, and ought to be made more common knowledge!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts