RE: SQL vs native access (was: Record name the same as the filename)

> From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> Not it wasn't incomplete enough to be misleading.  The point was that
for
> the type of operation being performed, the SQL access was faster than
the
> native access.

You still haven't identified the type of operation, so the post is
incomplete enough to be, if not misleading, then anecdotal.  "Some
operation in SQL was faster than the native version."  Not a lot of real
data there.  I was just asking for some actual information.


>  And the point further being that the person chose to
> remain with Native.  Why?  Because it was their personal comfort zone.

But why is it their personal comfort zone?  This would have been useful
information.  Instead, we have a weak insinuation that people stick with
native just because they like it, despite evidence to the contrary that
SQL is better.  This based on one completely factless anecdote.

I don't understand what the point of your statement was if you don't
share the actual details, other than to try and broadly show those who
prefer native access in some sort of negative light.


> ps:  Joe, a single row fetch does not need a SELECT/FETCH.  A simple
> SELECT INTO will suffice.

That's my point.  In order to properly compare native I/O and SQL, there
needs to be an agreed upon set of equivalent operations.  Back in the
day, it was a little easier, but scrollable updateable cursors make it a
little more complicated.

Joe