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

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: <rob@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Another business case. A die hard native person did some time trials
and
> was stunned to find the sql faster. However he decided to stick with
> native anyway.

This is somewhat apocryphal, or at least incomplete enough to be
misleading.  For what type of operation was SQL faster?  And why did the
person stick with native?  Some people like to use native access because
they find it easier to debug 10 separate I/O statements than one
ten-line-long SQL statement.

In any event, my most recent comparisons still showed SQL being roundly
outperformed by native access for single-record chains and particularly
for single-record inserts and updates.  If you have other information,
I'd love to see it.  At the same time, I'll try to dig up those tests
and run them again.

Joe