ADO vs. DAO in large JET tables

[Jesper F]

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

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

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.

 

[David C. Holley]

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.

 

[Allen Browne]

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.

 

[Tim Ferguson]

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

 

[Allen Browne]

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.