By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,488 Members | 2,545 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,488 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

3 part adp project

P: n/a
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)
Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
2 Replies


P: n/a
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)

Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
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.


Nov 12 '05 #3

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.