wilco_wings
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: 12/12/2004, 3:09 AM |
|
Hi,
By my last projects I used one access database with al tables in one file. I have now site's running dsn and dsn-less connections. I don't notice performance differences between them.
Now I'm preparing a new project, I could use your opinion with this one. By this project I expect more users and more database activity. Is it better to use more access files? I mean one for users and one for other table. And what is better dsn or dsn-less connections?
|
 |
 |
Richard Gutery
|
| Posted: 12/14/2004, 10:43 AM |
|
The TRUE answer will depend on How Many users and what type of activity (and
a few other things).
First: For example, it's a well know issue with Access that the entire DB
gets loaded in ram first, then the SQL statement is executed. If you have
many users performing Inserts and Updates I would suggest SQL server (or if
cost is an issue use MySQL - it's Great I tell you).
Second: DSNless connections are usually easier to administer. If you use DSN
based connections, then you need to make sure that the DSN config is on the
server if you ever move your DB and App to another server (just export the
Registry Entry and Import into the new box).
While we are on the subject of performance! I would suggest creating a COM
component that manages all connections and queries. These are binary files,
and while the ASP Parser is excellent, it is still interpreted and compiled
(on the fly I might add) real-time. By using a COM component, your get
reusability, speed and security. All the connection information is in the
component and does not get passed along (in clear text without SSL) on the
LAN/WAN, ergo the Security. Also, if the component is truely Threaded, the
MS MTS service will take care of all your tranasctions and ensure optimal
performance.
Also, in terms of security. If someone manages to hijack your ASP page(s)
(or registry entries) they can readily see connection, DB, DB Server Name
and Connection strings. People tend to use ADMIN or SA as the security
context of the connection string. In a COM component, this is hidden. Then
of course, there is the issue of indexing and spidering a site. Usually the
ROOT of your site is indexed (and spidered by search engines). Once this is
done, a simple search of something like '.conn' OR 'select' will expose the
ASP page with the connection information, yada yada yada.
(quick note: if you are going to have your site indexed or spidered, move
your connection (or SQL related) code to a virtual dir that is outside of
the root folder - this way, it can't be compromiseed).
Sorry for all the details, but you did ask and I'm trying to be as complete
as possible.
Hope it helps.
RG
"wilco_wings" <wilco_wings@forum.codecharge> wrote in message
news:641bc26fe0a577@news.codecharge.com...
> Hi,
>
> By my last projects I used one access database with al tables in one file.
> I
> have now site's running dsn and dsn-less connections. I don't notice
> performance differences between them.
>
> Now I'm preparing a new project, I could use your opinion with this one.
> By
> this project I expect more users and more database activity. Is it better
> to
> use more access files? I mean one for users and one for other table. And
> what
> is better dsn or dsn-less connections?
> ---------------------------------------
> Sent from YesSoftware forum
> http://forums.codecharge.com/
>
|
|
|
|
|
