RE: SQL vs native access

["Jon Paris" <Jon.Paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 >> According to Jon Paris' post, this doesn't seem to be the case, Walden.
Do you have any type of formal information on this, or are you just
guessing?

This may well be true Joe.  I know that such things were under consideration
because it might give Rochester more code sharing opportunities with the
other UDB flavors.

If I have the time I'll do some checking.

With regard to Joe's comment on why the SQL guys found it frustrating.  You
have to remember that ever since SQL became available they have been under
huge pressure to improve performance because native I/O performance used to
make SQL access times look just plain silly.  The guys were constantly
beaten up about it at every COMMON, on the internet boards, etc. etc.  The
frustration came about because they wanted to go out an shout "look at us
we've improved performance 80%" - but they couldn't because the changes they
made had just improved the native IO by 50%!  They didn't get any credit for
that - just more complaints about being slower.  It would get depressing
after a while don't ya think?

Jon Paris
Partner400
www.Partner400.com