3 part adp project

[Lyle Fairfield]

Part 1 - ADP
Part 2 - SQL DB A which contains all sprocs, views and udfs
Part 3 - SQL DB B which contains all tables

Have you worked with this configuration?
Do you have an opinion about its usefulness?
Would performance suffer?

I am thinking about ways to facilitate updating sprocs, views and udfs in a
db. These updates must be done by the db administrator. Sometimes he is busy.
I'm wondering about providing him with a backup of a new SQL DB A instead of
..sql, *.prc etc files.

--
Lyle
(for e-mail refer to http://ffdba.com/contacts.htm)

[Terry Kreft]

Lyle,
I would expect a minor performance hit but given the reasoning behind the
design would see it as acceptable.

--
Terry Kreft
MVP Microsoft Access

ps It just struck me; does this count as load balancing the DBA ? <g>.
"Lyle Fairfield" <Mi************@Invalid.Com> wrote in message
news:Xn*******************@130.133.1.4...

Part 1 - ADP
Part 2 - SQL DB A which contains all sprocs, views and udfs
Part 3 - SQL DB B which contains all tables

Have you worked with this configuration?
Do you have an opinion about its usefulness?
Would performance suffer?

I am thinking about ways to facilitate updating sprocs, views and udfs in a db. These updates must be done by the db administrator. Sometimes he is busy. I'm wondering about providing him with a backup of a new SQL DB A instead of .sql, *.prc etc files.

--
Lyle
(for e-mail refer to http://ffdba.com/contacts.htm)

[Steve Jorgensen]

Well, you could try it, but I've specifically had a problem using ADPs with
server views and procedures that select form tables in another database. The
ADP seems to expect the underlying tables to be in the same database, since it
tries to interact with them directly.

On 8 Apr 2004 12:19:18 GMT, Lyle Fairfield <Mi************@Invalid.Com> wrote:

Part 1 - ADP
Part 2 - SQL DB A which contains all sprocs, views and udfs
Part 3 - SQL DB B which contains all tables

Have you worked with this configuration?
Do you have an opinion about its usefulness?
Would performance suffer?

I am thinking about ways to facilitate updating sprocs, views and udfs in a
db. These updates must be done by the db administrator. Sometimes he is busy.
I'm wondering about providing him with a backup of a new SQL DB A instead of
.sql, *.prc etc files.