Data Access Layer using TableAdapter & Performance / Packaging

[Demetri]

I have a question / concern regarding the new suggested way of creating a
data access layer in an n-tier application. Typically, a web application
specifically, using the SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) approach.

At various sites such as 15 Seconds
(http://www.15seconds.com/issue/050721.htm) they advocate using the
TableAdapter wizard to generate the data access layer.

Describing the TableAdapter wizard, here is a quote from the above site:

"A TableAdapter connects to a database, executes queries, or stored
procedures against a database, and fills a DataTable with the data returned
by the query or stored procedure. In addition to filling existing data tables
with data, TableAdapters can return new data tables filled with data. The
TableAdapter Configuration Wizard allows you to create and edit TableAdapters
in strongly typed datasets. The wizard creates TableAdapters based on SQL
statements or existing stored procedures in the database. Through the wizard,
you can also create new stored procedures in the database."

Here is my question / concern: Isn't using IDataReader or a derived class a
much more performant way of accessing data?

In the past I have read several articles and have done the benchmark tests
myself, showing that doing crud operations through a data set is much more
performance inhibitive than using the lightweight objects and methods to
accomplish it.

A good article proving my point is the following:

http://aspnet.4guysfromrolla.com/dem.../050405-1.aspx

So then, has things changed so much in .Net 2.0 datasets and data objects
that the performance gap between datasets and lighterweight objects has been
closed?!? I doubt it. But please, do convince me! I *want* to make life
easier for myself, just not at the expense of sacraficing performance.

--
-Demetri

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

>Isn't using IDataReader or a derived class a >much more performant way of

accessing data?
I was under the same impression until I tried the table adapter. I am still
a bit leery, but perf is not my concern any more. The table adapters smoke,
speed wise.
--
Gregory A. Beamer

*************** *************** *************** ****
Think Outside the Box!
*************** *************** *************** ****
"Demetri" <De*****@discus sions.microsoft .com> wrote in message
news:03******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...I have a question / concern regarding the new suggested way of creating a
data access layer in an n-tier application. Typically, a web application
specifically, using the SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) approach.

At various sites such as 15 Seconds
(http://www.15seconds.com/issue/050721.htm) they advocate using the
TableAdapter wizard to generate the data access layer.

Describing the TableAdapter wizard, here is a quote from the above site:

"A TableAdapter connects to a database, executes queries, or stored
procedures against a database, and fills a DataTable with the data
returned
by the query or stored procedure. In addition to filling existing data
tables
with data, TableAdapters can return new data tables filled with data. The
TableAdapter Configuration Wizard allows you to create and edit
TableAdapters
in strongly typed datasets. The wizard creates TableAdapters based on SQL
statements or existing stored procedures in the database. Through the
wizard,
you can also create new stored procedures in the database."

Here is my question / concern: Isn't using IDataReader or a derived class
a
much more performant way of accessing data?

In the past I have read several articles and have done the benchmark tests
myself, showing that doing crud operations through a data set is much more
performance inhibitive than using the lightweight objects and methods to
accomplish it.

A good article proving my point is the following:

http://aspnet.4guysfromrolla.com/dem.../050405-1.aspx

So then, has things changed so much in .Net 2.0 datasets and data objects
that the performance gap between datasets and lighterweight objects has
been
closed?!? I doubt it. But please, do convince me! I *want* to make life
easier for myself, just not at the expense of sacraficing performance.

--
-Demetri