I've always used JET and DAO together since I've heard several places that
this is faster than JET+ADO.
Now I just read in a newsletter article that with tables over approx. 10.000
records ADO outperforms DAO even though using JET.
Does anyone know if this is correct and if the speed differences are worth
while a change?

Thanks.

Jesper

I'd be curious to see that newsletter article.

As far as I'm aware, Jet+DAO will always be faster than Jet+ADO. That's
because DAO was developed specifically for Jet. ADO is a generic model, so
there are additional levels of abstraction.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no e-mails, please!)



"Jesper F" <jf> wrote in message
news:42cc2ddd$0$21453$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I've always used JET and DAO together since I've heard several places that
> this is faster than JET+ADO.
> Now I just read in a newsletter article that with tables over approx.
> 10.000
> records ADO outperforms DAO even though using JET.
> Does anyone know if this is correct and if the speed differences are worth
> while a change?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jesper
>
>

I never jumped on the ADO bandwagon when it came out. I presume from the
comment then that DAO can be viewed as essentially 'native' to Jet which
is why it should be faster.

Douglas J. Steele wrote:
> I'd be curious to see that newsletter article.
>
> As far as I'm aware, Jet+DAO will always be faster than Jet+ADO. That's
> because DAO was developed specifically for Jet. ADO is a generic model, so
> there are additional levels of abstraction.
>

It may be possible to find specific scenarios where ADO is more efficient,
but in general the statement would be inaccurate.

More fundamentally, why would anyone be trying to promote a technology that
is now officially dead in the water? If I understand correctly, ADO is
different from the ADO.NET replacement. DAO lives on as *the* library
designed for Access, i.e. the A in ADO *is* Access, so anything that MS has
not yet updated in DAO does not actually work in the Access interface (e.g.
the query window) because Access itself relies on DAO.

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"Jesper F" <jf> wrote in message
news:42cc2ddd$0$21453$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I've always used JET and DAO together since I've heard several places that
> this is faster than JET+ADO.
> Now I just read in a newsletter article that with tables over approx.
> 10.000
> records ADO outperforms DAO even though using JET.
> Does anyone know if this is correct and if the speed differences are worth
> while a change?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jesper

Thanks, Tim, for picking that up.

The A in DAO is MS Access: Data Access Objects.
The A in ADO is ActiveX, as you said.

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"Tim Ferguson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns968D181C8BDBgarbleme4455656@207.46.248.16...
> "Allen Browne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:#H1hT#pgFHA.2424
> @TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:
>
>> DAO lives on as *the* library
>> designed for Access, i.e. the A in ADO *is* Access,
>
> I think the "A" in ADO actually stands for ActiveX. But I do agree with
> what you were saying.
>
>
> Best wishes
>
>
> Tim F