Hi all,

the question I want to ask if the conversion of a DataReader to a Table
looping through the DataReader is better than using the Fill Method of
the DataAdapter... I'm asking because internally the DataAdapter uses
the DataReader... so whats the deal of writing a method that converts a
DataReader into a DataTable ?

Thanks!

Varangian,
Beats me. If it ain't broke, why fix it?
Peter

--
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:
http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com




"Varangian" wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> the question I want to ask if the conversion of a DataReader to a Table
> looping through the DataReader is better than using the Fill Method of
> the DataAdapter... I'm asking because internally the DataAdapter uses
> the DataReader... so whats the deal of writing a method that converts a
> DataReader into a DataTable ?
>
> Thanks!
>
>

what do you mean ?


Peter wrote:
> Varangian,
> Beats me. If it ain't broke, why fix it?
> Peter
>
> --
> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
> UnBlog:
> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
> "Varangian" wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > the question I want to ask if the conversion of a DataReader to a Table
> > looping through the DataReader is better than using the Fill Method of
> > the DataAdapter... I'm asking because internally the DataAdapter uses
> > the DataReader... so whats the deal of writing a method that converts a
> > DataReader into a DataTable ?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >

Why don't you make two test functions and time it using TimeSpan. It
really does depend on the size of the database, location of database, number
of records requested and numerous other things.



"Varangian" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi all,
>
> the question I want to ask if the conversion of a DataReader to a Table
> looping through the DataReader is better than using the Fill Method of
> the DataAdapter... I'm asking because internally the DataAdapter uses
> the DataReader... so whats the deal of writing a method that converts a
> DataReader into a DataTable ?
>
> Thanks!
>

What I meant was, you are correct that the DataAdapter already does this
internally, and it works just fine. In the big scheme of things, the time
difference is inconsequential.
Peter

--
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:
http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com




"Varangian" wrote:

> what do you mean ?
>
>
> Peter wrote:
> > Varangian,
> > Beats me. If it ain't broke, why fix it?
> > Peter
> >
> > --
> > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
> > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
> > UnBlog:
> > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Varangian" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > the question I want to ask if the conversion of a DataReader to a Table
> > > looping through the DataReader is better than using the Fill Method of
> > > the DataAdapter... I'm asking because internally the DataAdapter uses
> > > the DataReader... so whats the deal of writing a method that converts a
> > > DataReader into a DataTable ?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > >
>
>

well its always better in making it faster

DataAdapter are always slow compared to the DataReader

I made a test with about 8000 records first with the DataAdapter and
then the DataReader (building a table), on how long it took on each..
each round representing TotalMilliseconds for a TimeSpan from Start of
execution till End

DataAdapter
1) 701
2) 801
3) 741

DataReader
1) 831
2) 791
3) 871

there seems to be a minor difference ..though I found with my test (is
thsi correct?) that the DataAdapter is faster than the DataReader
(minimal ok)

thanks anyway


Peter Bromberg [ C# MVP ] wrote:
> What I meant was, you are correct that the DataAdapter already does this
> internally, and it works just fine. In the big scheme of things, the time
> difference is inconsequential.
> Peter
>
> --
> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
> UnBlog:
> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
> "Varangian" wrote:
>
> > what do you mean ?
> >
> >
> > Peter wrote:
> > > Varangian,
> > > Beats me. If it ain't broke, why fix it?
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > --
> > > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
> > > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
> > > UnBlog:
> > > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Varangian" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > the question I want to ask if the conversion of a DataReader to a Table
> > > > looping through the DataReader is better than using the Fill Method of
> > > > the DataAdapter... I'm asking because internally the DataAdapter uses
> > > > the DataReader... so whats the deal of writing a method that converts a
> > > > DataReader into a DataTable ?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >

Well! Thanks for confirming my theme that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it.".
There could also be inconsistencies in your test code, which you didn't
post. But the point is, why get hung up over 1/10 of a second (unless it's
something you are doing 100,000 times in a row...)
Peter

--
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:
http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com




"Varangian" wrote:

> well its always better in making it faster
>
> DataAdapter are always slow compared to the DataReader
>
> I made a test with about 8000 records first with the DataAdapter and
> then the DataReader (building a table), on how long it took on each..
> each round representing TotalMilliseconds for a TimeSpan from Start of
> execution till End
>
> DataAdapter
> 1) 701
> 2) 801
> 3) 741
>
> DataReader
> 1) 831
> 2) 791
> 3) 871
>
> there seems to be a minor difference ..though I found with my test (is
> thsi correct?) that the DataAdapter is faster than the DataReader
> (minimal ok)
>
> thanks anyway
>
>
> Peter Bromberg [ C# MVP ] wrote:
> > What I meant was, you are correct that the DataAdapter already does this
> > internally, and it works just fine. In the big scheme of things, the time
> > difference is inconsequential.
> > Peter
> >
> > --
> > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
> > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
> > UnBlog:
> > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Varangian" wrote:
> >
> > > what do you mean ?
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter wrote:
> > > > Varangian,
> > > > Beats me. If it ain't broke, why fix it?
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
> > > > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
> > > > UnBlog:
> > > > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Varangian" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > the question I want to ask if the conversion of a DataReader to a Table
> > > > > looping through the DataReader is better than using the Fill Method of
> > > > > the DataAdapter... I'm asking because internally the DataAdapter uses
> > > > > the DataReader... so whats the deal of writing a method that converts a
> > > > > DataReader into a DataTable ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>

What possible issues did I miss in this test? I just looped through the
datareader and build a row for each record in the DataTable ..

yes I agree with your point.. but in some situations.. its better
winning that 1 second


Peter wrote:
> Well! Thanks for confirming my theme that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it.".
> There could also be inconsistencies in your test code, which you didn't
> post. But the point is, why get hung up over 1/10 of a second (unless it's
> something you are doing 100,000 times in a row...)
> Peter
>
> --
> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
> UnBlog:
> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
> "Varangian" wrote:
>
> > well its always better in making it faster
> >
> > DataAdapter are always slow compared to the DataReader
> >
> > I made a test with about 8000 records first with the DataAdapter and
> > then the DataReader (building a table), on how long it took on each..
> > each round representing TotalMilliseconds for a TimeSpan from Start of
> > execution till End
> >
> > DataAdapter
> > 1) 701
> > 2) 801
> > 3) 741
> >
> > DataReader
> > 1) 831
> > 2) 791
> > 3) 871
> >
> > there seems to be a minor difference ..though I found with my test (is
> > thsi correct?) that the DataAdapter is faster than the DataReader
> > (minimal ok)
> >
> > thanks anyway
> >
> >
> > Peter Bromberg [ C# MVP ] wrote:
> > > What I meant was, you are correct that the DataAdapter already does this
> > > internally, and it works just fine. In the big scheme of things, the time
> > > difference is inconsequential.
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > --
> > > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
> > > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
> > > UnBlog:
> > > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Varangian" wrote:
> > >
> > > > what do you mean ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Peter wrote:
> > > > > Varangian,
> > > > > Beats me. If it ain't broke, why fix it?
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
> > > > > http://www.eggheadcafe.com
> > > > > UnBlog:
> > > > > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Varangian" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the question I want to ask if the conversion of a DataReader to a Table
> > > > > > looping through the DataReader is better than using the Fill Method of
> > > > > > the DataAdapter... I'm asking because internally the DataAdapter uses
> > > > > > the DataReader... so whats the deal of writing a method that converts a
> > > > > > DataReader into a DataTable ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >