Where vs. Filter

[Ardus Petus]

I've not been clear in my previous posting:
Is the rs.Filter clause processed on client's side or is it the same as a
parameterized whre clause in the SQL statement ?

TIA

 

[Jamie Collins]

I've not been clear in my previous posting:
Is the rs.Filter clause processed on client's side or is it the same as a
parameterized whre clause in the SQL statement ?

It is client side.

Jamie.

--

 

[Ardus Petus]

My problem is I have a SQL query where some of the WHERE clause fields do
not appear on the SELECT list of fields.
So it might be worth (to keep the max. load done on client side) to put all
fields in the SELECT clause, and do to filtering on client's side.

Are you sure oRS.Filter="xxxx" will not provoke a re-query?

TIA

 

[Ardus Petus]

PS: I'm using Access 2000 on a Windoxs Xp Pro machine

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

Why would you want to bring all the unnecessary data down to the
workstation?

 

[Ardus Petus]

Because I'm going to loop on separate .filter Fields, an produce various
reports depending on them

 

[Ardus Petus]

quote from http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-odbc/2004-08/msg00004.php

Using the filter property of a bound form is not a problem I think, at
least with Access 2000. The filtering is done server-side, and only the
necessary data is fetched on the client. I don't think this is a
performance penalty.

But with Access 2003, I agree I have problems too. For an unknown
reason, filtering is apprently done client-side, don't ask me why...

HTH

 

[Jamie Collins]

Why would you want to bring all the unnecessary data down to the
workstation?

To avoid a database round trip each time you want to show a different
subset.

Think of a list with a filter the user can apply: do you hit the
database evertime the user changes the filter of do you keep the full
set and filter on demand? I'm not saying rs.Filter is always the best
way but it is a useful in some circumstances e.g. where the total
resultset is not too large.

Jamie.

--