Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Please, give me the most serious arguments against this.
Application directly opens a connection to ms sql server, directly executes queries.
So what I’d like to ask:
1) Why it is wrong when the number of users can be up to 1000 executing huge queries?
2) What serious problems can that cause?
3) What should I do?:)
Arguments, the most serious arguments against this kind of implementation!
One of the things to consider is how the queries are done. 1000 queries against a SQL Server DB might be manageable, but 1000 Access queries in which the table is locked, or which are actually joins or views, could use dramatically more memory. It really depends on how the application is written. Some Access apps open a recordset and page through the records one at a time, or fetch a few dozen and work on those, but sometimes Access grabs the whole recordset, for example to allow users to page through data. And I have seen Access lock a set of tables to allow editing of them. That would be bad in your scenario.
Of course, I wholeheartedly agree with the “10 years out of support” issue. That is a guaranteed problem. Mine is only a possibility. And you should probably update SQL Server to a current version also, for the same reason.