转换为adp [英] Conversion to adp
问题描述
嗨
我正在将我的访问前端/后端mdb应用程序转换为adp。有什么
陷阱我应该知道吗？
谢谢
问候
Hi
I am converting my access front-end/backend mdb app to adp. Are there any
pitfalls I should be aware of?
Thanks
Regards
推荐答案
John，
1.如果新的后端是SQL Server而旧的后端是Jet / Access
然后很多，也许所有服务中的SQL可能需要重新访问
确保它在SQL Server上按预期运行。像DCount等等，在SQL Server上不存在
。 IIf（）实现为CASE并且工作方式不同。
Date（）是GETDATE（），"必须是''''，很多细节都不一样。
2.直接转储Jet SQL并修复错误&只需在SQL Server上创建现有的SQL函数就可以避免在SQL上出现非常糟糕的性能，因为它可能会导致Access做一些非常愚蠢的事情。 />
将SQL转换为可以在SQL Server上运行的东西。
3. TransactSQL比JetSQL更强大。 VBA。
表现&稳定性的提升可能来自对Access中实现的业务流程的全面审查，以及对在SQL Server上实现它们的最佳方式的研究。
-
Alan Webb
kn **** ***@SPAMhotmail.com
这不是IT，它是'
" John" <乔** @ nospam.infovis.co.uk>在留言中写道
news：42 ********************* @ news-text.dial.pipex.com ...
John,
1. If the new back-end is SQL Server and the old back-end was Jet/Access
then much and perhaps all of the SQL in service may need to be revisited to
ensure it runs as intended on SQL Server. Things like DCount, etc., don''t
exist on SQL Server. IIf() is implemented as CASE and works differently.
Date() is GETDATE(), "" has to be '''', lots of little details are different.
2. A straight dump of Jet SQL with bug fixes & workarounds to just make the
existing SQL function on SQL Server risks really crappy performance on SQL
Server because it''s possible to cause Access to do some really boneheaded
translation of SQL into something that will run on SQL Server.
3. TransactSQL is lightyears more capable than JetSQL & VBA. The
performance & stability gains possible will come from a thorough review of
the business processes implemented in Access and a study of the best way to
implement them on SQL Server.
--
Alan Webb
kn*******@SPAMhotmail.com
"It''s not IT, it''s IS
"John" <Jo**@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42*********************@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
嗨
我正在将我的访问前端/后端mdb应用程序转换为adp。是否有任何我应该注意的陷阱？
感谢
问候
Hi
I am converting my access front-end/backend mdb app to adp. Are there any
pitfalls I should be aware of?
Thanks
Regards
John写道：
John wrote:
我正在将我的访问前端/后端mdb应用程序转换为adp。是否有任何我应该注意的陷阱？
I am converting my access front-end/backend mdb app to adp. Are there any
pitfalls I should be aware of?
只有几个小的：
ADP是不可靠，表现出不稳定的异常现象（它们发生在一天但是b
不是下一个），打开许多连接（所有这些都非常好）很难打开一个表格在一个特定的记录，有b / b
重复发生，有时无法解决的更新问题，需要神秘的
程序进行报告过滤，并创建一个易受攻击的不安全路线
到了数据库。
除此之外，他们很棒。
我是否提到他们让你的数据不安全？
即'INSECURE
INSECURE！
-
-
Lyle
试图控制思想的人的目标始终如一。他们
找到一个世界的单一解释，一个思想系统和
行动将（他们相信）涵盖一切;然后他们试图将b $ b强加给所有有思想的人。
- Gilbert Highet
Only a few minor ones:
ADPs are unreliable, exhibit erratic anomalies (they happen one day but
not the next), open many connections (all of which are wonderfully
slow), have difficulty in opening a form at a specific record, have
recurring and sometimes unsolvable updating problems, require arcane
procedures for report filtering, and create a vulnerable insecure route
to the database.
Other than that they''re fabulous.
Did I mention that they make your data insecure?
that''s INSECURE
I-N-S-E-C-U-R-E!
--
--
Lyle
"The aim of those who try to control thought is always the same. They
find one single explanation of the world, one system of thought and
action that will (they believe) cover everything; and then they try to
impose that on all thinking people."
- Gilbert Highet
我需要sql server后端与某些笔记本电脑建立复制/同步
用户想要断开连接，然后在重新连接时同步。在我的
案例中，解决方案是什么？我应该保留mdb前端并将
表链接到sql server吗？还有什么吗？
谢谢
问候
" Lyle Fairfield" < LY ****** @ yahoo.ca>在消息中写道
新闻：0P ********************* @ read2.cgocable.net ...
I need the sql server backend to establish replication/sync with some laptop
users who would like to disconnect and then sync when they reconnect. In my
case what is the solution? Should I keep the mdb front-end and link the
tables off sql server? Anything else?
Thanks
Regards
"Lyle Fairfield" <ly******@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:0P*********************@read2.cgocable.net...
John写道：
John wrote:
我正在将我的访问前端/后端mdb应用程序转换为adp。是否有任何我应该注意的陷阱？
I am converting my access front-end/backend mdb app to adp. Are there any
pitfalls I should be aware of?
只有少数几个小的：
ADP不可靠，表现出不稳定的异常（它们发生）有一天，但不是下一个），打开许多连接（所有这些都非常缓慢），
难以在特定记录中打开表单，有反复发生和有时无法解决的更新问题，需要神秘的程序进行报告过滤，并创建一个易受攻击的不安全路径到数据库。
除此之外，他们很棒。
我提到了吗？他们让你的数据不安全吗？
那是'INSECURE
INSECURE！
-
-
Lyle
试图控制思想的人的目标总是一样的。他们找到了对世界的一个单一解释，一个思想和行动系统（它们会相信）涵盖一切;然后他们试图把它强加给所有有思想的人。
- Gilbert Highet
Only a few minor ones:
ADPs are unreliable, exhibit erratic anomalies (they happen one day but
not the next), open many connections (all of which are wonderfully slow),
have difficulty in opening a form at a specific record, have recurring and
sometimes unsolvable updating problems, require arcane procedures for
report filtering, and create a vulnerable insecure route to the database.
Other than that they''re fabulous.
Did I mention that they make your data insecure?
that''s INSECURE
I-N-S-E-C-U-R-E!
--
--
Lyle
"The aim of those who try to control thought is always the same. They find
one single explanation of the world, one system of thought and action that
will (they believe) cover everything; and then they try to impose that on
all thinking people."
- Gilbert Highet
这篇关于转换为adp的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
