ODBC:
Conex.open "DRIVER={Microsoft Access Driver (*.mdb)}; DBQ=C:\misitio\db\mibase.mdb;"
OLEDB:
Conex.Open "Provider=Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.3.51; Data Source=C:\misitio\db\mibase.mdb;"
Que conexion es la mejor y porque??
07/03/2005, 19:13
| ||||
| ||||
| ODBC vs OLEDB ODBC: Conex.open "DRIVER={Microsoft Access Driver (*.mdb)}; DBQ=C:\misitio\db\mibase.mdb;" OLEDB: Conex.Open "Provider=Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.3.51; Data Source=C:\misitio\db\mibase.mdb;" Que conexion es la mejor y porque?? |
|
08/03/2005, 09:58
| ||||
| ||||
| Cita:
Iniciado por aspfaq.com What should my connection string look like? I've been preaching for years that DSNs cause unnecessary overhead and extra maintenance tasks. And all this time, the majority of Microsoft's code samples have displayed the use of DSNs. Now, Microsoft has deprecated ODBC, and is finally backing me up. So, whenever possible, use a native OLEDB provider, rather than a DSN. The overhead caused by DSNs is clear and testable. Many people scratch their heads about why I insist that DSNs make code harder to maintain. Well, unless you can log into the ISP's machine with remote software (which is typically only allowed when you're leasing entire servers to yourself), it is not trivial to make changes to existing DSNs, or add new ones. You need to have your ISP manage your DSN(s), which certainly takes time, and sometimes costs money (depending on the host). Granted, some hosts have pretty "control panel" type applications that help you do this. But it still moves one of your programming tasks to a location outside of your development environment. Also, you can only manage so many DSNs reasonably (see KB #252475). Using a DSN-less connection (for example, those found in this article), you can avoid this hassle *and* make your data access faster... ... http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2126 OLEDB con DSNLess
__________________ ...___... |
