Access using .Net Datagrid

I'm a long time developer in Access. Noticing the "Why do IT guys hate
MS Access?" thread made me think of my recent experiences in
experimenting with VB .Net, and specifically, the Datagrid control.

I have an app that has a very large table, about 700,000 records.
Access handles this table with ease. I can load the entire table in a
datasheet in seconds, with little additional impact on system memory.
I can lookup, sort and filter on any indexed field almost instantly.

If I try to load in the same table in a Datagrid in VB .Net, the thing
chugs along for well over a minute, while task manager shows the app
consuming hundreds of megs of memory. Doing a sort on a column is
almost as slow as the load.

I'm just experimenting here...by no means am I proficient in .Net. But
this seems ridiculous.

Are there tricks to using the Datagrid? I'm just doing a drag and drop
of the table onto a form (most recent effort was in VB 2005 Express,
Beta 2). Are there other ways to handle data more efficiently in
.Net?

How about reports? VB .Net 2002 uses a hacked down version of Crystal.
Yuck..never could understand why Microsoft didn't incorporate the
great Access report writer in their VB products.

Any opinions or comments are welcomed.

Thanks,

John

re: Access using .Net Datagrid

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 02:11:27 -0500,
jfitz@ezdbr-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (StepUP) wrote:

So you're saying that Access can do a very bad thing efficiently while
the datagrid cannot. I don't see the harm in that.

-Tom.

[color=blue]
>I'm a long time developer in Access. Noticing the "Why do IT guys hate
>MS Access?" thread made me think of my recent experiences in
>experimenting with VB .Net, and specifically, the Datagrid control.
>
>I have an app that has a very large table, about 700,000 records.
>Access handles this table with ease. I can load the entire table in a
>datasheet in seconds, with little additional impact on system memory.
>I can lookup, sort and filter on any indexed field almost instantly.
>
>If I try to load in the same table in a Datagrid in VB .Net, the thing
>chugs along for well over a minute, while task manager shows the app
>consuming hundreds of megs of memory. Doing a sort on a column is
>almost as slow as the load.
>
>I'm just experimenting here...by no means am I proficient in .Net. But
>this seems ridiculous.
>
>Are there tricks to using the Datagrid? I'm just doing a drag and drop
>of the table onto a form (most recent effort was in VB 2005 Express,
>Beta 2). Are there other ways to handle data more efficiently in
>.Net?
>
>How about reports? VB .Net 2002 uses a hacked down version of Crystal.
>Yuck..never could understand why Microsoft didn't incorporate the
>great Access report writer in their VB products.
>
>Any opinions or comments are welcomed.
>
>Thanks,
>
>John[/color]

re: Access using .Net Datagrid

Tom van Stiphout <no.spam.tom7744@cox.net> wrote in
news:1hgtj1hi5etvggrm85k4vpir98hhanujp4@4ax.com:
[color=blue]
> So you're saying that Access can do a very bad thing efficiently
> while the datagrid cannot. I don't see the harm in that.[/color]

While that is true, the point is that the penalty for doing the bad
thing in Access is nil, from a resources standpoint. As that was one
of the points of criticism that comes from IT, I think the
comparison is valid. There are lots of programmers out there who do
stupid things, and it seems like in Access the penalty for that is
substantially less than in VB.

That's either a good thing or a bad thing from the standpoint of
good programming practices, but it's clearly a point of superiority
for Access vs. VB in terms of use of system resources.

And let me say that my experieince with VB programmers who've
attempted database apps shows me that many of them have absolutely
no business writing db apps, as they don't understand the basics of
databases in the first place, and end up creating hideous schemas
and then the writing awful code to work with them.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

re: Access using .Net Datagrid

> Tom van Stiphoutwrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 02:11:27 -0500,[color=blue]
> jfitz@ezdbr-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (StepUP) wrote:
>
> So you're saying that Access can do a very bad thing efficiently[/color]
while[color=blue]
> the datagrid cannot. I don't see the harm in that.
>
> -Tom[/color]

What very bad thing?? Being able to display a large volume of records
quickly?

Maybe this was "bad" in the days of 1MB ethernet, but on today's
networks...I wouldn't call it bad...I call it NICE! :D

re: Access using .Net Datagrid

StepUP wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
> > Tom van Stiphoutwrote:[/color]
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 02:11:27 -0500,[color=green]
> > jfitz@ezdbr-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (StepUP) wrote:
> >
> > So you're saying that Access can do a very bad thing efficiently[/color]
> while[color=green]
> > the datagrid cannot. I don't see the harm in that.
> >
> > -Tom[/color]
>
> What very bad thing?? Being able to display a large volume of records
> quickly?
>
> Maybe this was "bad" in the days of 1MB ethernet, but on today's
> networks...I wouldn't call it bad...I call it NICE! :D[/color]

I guess Tom, like I, wanted to know under what circumstances displaying
700,000 records could be desirable? I would say there's a difference
between users having access to the records, and the system displaying
them by default.

Edward

re: Access using .Net Datagrid

On 3 Oct 2005 08:06:36 -0700, teddysnips@hotmail.com wrote:[color=blue]
>
>I guess Tom, like I, wanted to know under what circumstances displaying
>700,000 records could be desirable? I would say there's a difference
>between users having access to the records, and the system displaying
>them by default.
>
>Edward[/color]

This is a misconception unless your screen has 700,000 lines.
The idea of a cursor which you can scroll at will is a lot better than
what we have to put up with on Google, for example, and client server
UIs are often not a lot better.

re: Access using .Net Datagrid

> I guess Tom, like I, wanted to know under what circumstances
displaying[color=blue]
> 700,000 records could be desirable? I would say there's a[/color]
difference[color=blue]
> between users having access to the records, and the system[/color]
displaying[color=blue]
> them by default.
>
> Edward[/color]

Well, there really is not much practical use for it, I was just making
a point about speed and efficiency in Access vs .Net.

If the Datgrid displayed the records in, say 10 seconds to Access' 2
seconds, I wouldn't be too concerned. But to take over 60 seconds,
and use 200 megs of memory..that's troubling.

JF