RE: Access Question
I haven't used access in quite a while, but I believe you can control the formatting of boolean fields in the schema edit form, down in the bottom part where all the options are. If you're using an integer in a boolean context, the safest bet is always comparing to zero, because zero is always the only false value, whereas true can have multiple values. SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE booleanfield 0 Cheers, barneyb -Original Message- From: Jim McAtee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:08 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Access Question Off topic:When a table is opened in Access in the spreadsheet-like view, sometimes a boolean Yes/No field appears as -1/0 and sometimes as checkboxes.What controls this, and is it indicative in any way of how the data field itself is defined? On topic:Is it always safe to do a query on an Access table through the MS ODBC drivers and test a Yes/No field using 1/0 rather than -1/0?I realize why Access stores booleans that appear as -1.What I'm wondering is if the ODBC layer masks this from the developer. SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE booleanfield = 1 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Access Question
I'm having a tough time with an access query. I'm sure
it's something simple, but I had shoulder surgery
yesterday so I have a ball pumping goodies into the
shoulder at it's own discretion. :-)
INSERT INTO subdir
VALUES ('#good#')
And the table is:
subdir_id (autonumber)
subdir (text)
The error says:
ODBC Error Code = 21S01 (Insert value list does not
match column list)
[Microsoft][ODBC Microsoft Access Driver] Number of
query values and destination fields are not the same.
SQL = INSERT INTO subdir VALUES ('')
Add the field name to the query:
INSERT INTO subdir (subdir)
VALUES ('#good#')
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
: dream :: design :: develop :
MXDC 02 :: Join us at this all day conference for
designers developers to learn tips, tricks, best
practices and more for the entire Macromedia MX suite.
September 28, 2002 :: http://www.mxdc02.com/
(Register today, seats are limited!)
::
__
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access Question
What is the name of the table?
Mark Stephenson
New Media Director
Evolution Internet
T: 0870 757 1631
F: 0870 757 1632
W: www.evolutioninternet.co.uk
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This email, together with any attachments, is for the exclusive and
confidential use of the addressee(s). Any other distribution, use or
reproduction without the sender's prior consent is unauthorised and strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
notify the sender by email immediately and delete the message from your
computer without making any copies.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 September 2002 17:18
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Access Question
I'm having a tough time with an access query. I'm sure it's something
simple, but I had shoulder surgery yesterday so I have a ball pumping
goodies into the shoulder at it's own discretion. :-)
INSERT INTO subdir
VALUES ('#good#')
And the table is:
subdir_id (autonumber)
subdir (text)
The error says:
ODBC Error Code = 21S01 (Insert value list does not match column list)
[Microsoft][ODBC Microsoft Access Driver] Number of query values and
destination fields are not the same.
SQL = INSERT INTO subdir VALUES ('')
I know this should work. This db WAS an Access 97 that I converted to
Access2002. Could that be affecting it? I've looked at other queries
that work like this with autonumber primary keys. Should I just go lay
down or what?
__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access Question
I tried that also and I get crazy things like
{08A95C45-4CEE-4A86-9B18-13DA30C013C9} inserted as the subdir_id if I
have the fieldsize set as Replication ID, or -2138072423 if I have
it set for Long Integer.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 12:27 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Access Question
I'm having a tough time with an access query. I'm sure
it's something simple, but I had shoulder surgery
yesterday so I have a ball pumping goodies into the
shoulder at it's own discretion. :-)
INSERT INTO subdir
VALUES ('#good#')
And the table is:
subdir_id (autonumber)
subdir (text)
The error says:
ODBC Error Code = 21S01 (Insert value list does not
match column list)
[Microsoft][ODBC Microsoft Access Driver] Number of
query values and destination fields are not the same.
SQL = INSERT INTO subdir VALUES ('')
Add the field name to the query:
INSERT INTO subdir (subdir)
VALUES ('#good#')
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
: dream :: design :: develop :
MXDC 02 :: Join us at this all day conference for
designers developers to learn tips, tricks, best
practices and more for the entire Macromedia MX suite.
September 28, 2002 :: http://www.mxdc02.com/
(Register today, seats are limited!)
::
__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access Question
Usually when I get a message like that in sql it usually means I forgot
something simple like a comma. Are you inserting several things?
-Original Message-
From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 1:06 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Access Question
I tried that also and I get crazy things like
{08A95C45-4CEE-4A86-9B18-13DA30C013C9} inserted as the subdir_id if I
have the fieldsize set as Replication ID, or -2138072423 if I have
it set for Long Integer.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 12:27 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Access Question
I'm having a tough time with an access query. I'm sure
it's something simple, but I had shoulder surgery
yesterday so I have a ball pumping goodies into the
shoulder at it's own discretion. :-)
INSERT INTO subdir
VALUES ('#good#')
And the table is:
subdir_id (autonumber)
subdir (text)
The error says:
ODBC Error Code = 21S01 (Insert value list does not
match column list)
[Microsoft][ODBC Microsoft Access Driver] Number of
query values and destination fields are not the same.
SQL = INSERT INTO subdir VALUES ('')
Add the field name to the query:
INSERT INTO subdir (subdir)
VALUES ('#good#')
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
: dream :: design :: develop :
MXDC 02 :: Join us at this all day conference for
designers developers to learn tips, tricks, best
practices and more for the entire Macromedia MX suite.
September 28, 2002 :: http://www.mxdc02.com/
(Register today, seats are limited!)
::
__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access Question
I just went thru something like this try this:
INSERT INTO tablename(column2)
VALUES ('#good#')
-Original Message-
From: Janine Jakim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 12:21 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Access Question
Usually when I get a message like that in sql it usually means I forgot
something simple like a comma. Are you inserting several things?
-Original Message-
From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 1:06 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Access Question
I tried that also and I get crazy things like
{08A95C45-4CEE-4A86-9B18-13DA30C013C9} inserted as the subdir_id if I
have the fieldsize set as Replication ID, or -2138072423 if I have
it set for Long Integer.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 12:27 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Access Question
I'm having a tough time with an access query. I'm sure
it's something simple, but I had shoulder surgery
yesterday so I have a ball pumping goodies into the
shoulder at it's own discretion. :-)
INSERT INTO subdir
VALUES ('#good#')
And the table is:
subdir_id (autonumber)
subdir (text)
The error says:
ODBC Error Code = 21S01 (Insert value list does not
match column list)
[Microsoft][ODBC Microsoft Access Driver] Number of
query values and destination fields are not the same.
SQL = INSERT INTO subdir VALUES ('')
Add the field name to the query:
INSERT INTO subdir (subdir)
VALUES ('#good#')
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
: dream :: design :: develop :
MXDC 02 :: Join us at this all day conference for
designers developers to learn tips, tricks, best
practices and more for the entire Macromedia MX suite.
September 28, 2002 :: http://www.mxdc02.com/
(Register today, seats are limited!)
::
__
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Access Question
Some questions. Which CF version? Can we see the queries? Code good, theory unproductive ;) Are the fields that get missed consistent? Are you able to reproduce the error, and if so what does the query look like in the debug? -- jon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, August 9, 2002, 1:48:00 PM, you wrote: CY I'm doing a project the has INSERT INTO, UPDATE and DELETE forms. My CY question is when I do my INSERT INTO or UPDATE, not all of my table form CY fields get inserted or updated. I can't figured out the glitch, sometimes CY it's fine and other times it would miss a couple of fields. How can I make CY sure that every fields get inserted or updated? and is there a connection CY string I need to put in to make it more reliable? CY Thanks, CY corey CY __ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access Question
I'm using CFMX. My query is pretty simple CFUPDATE DATASOURCE=profiles TABLENAME=Site and CFINSERT DATASOURCE=profiles TABLENAME=Site. The fields missed are pretty consistent, but there were no error. It just doesn't write/show in the database. I got the confirm page that it was successfully updated or inserted every time. corey -Original Message- From: jon hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 11:04 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Access Question Some questions. Which CF version? Can we see the queries? Code good, theory unproductive ;) Are the fields that get missed consistent? Are you able to reproduce the error, and if so what does the query look like in the debug? -- jon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, August 9, 2002, 1:48:00 PM, you wrote: CY I'm doing a project the has INSERT INTO, UPDATE and DELETE forms. My CY question is when I do my INSERT INTO or UPDATE, not all of my table form CY fields get inserted or updated. I can't figured out the glitch, sometimes CY it's fine and other times it would miss a couple of fields. How can I make CY sure that every fields get inserted or updated? and is there a connection CY string I need to put in to make it more reliable? CY Thanks, CY corey CY __ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Access Question
with cfupdate, you have to name the form fields the same as the table fields. if they aren't spelled exactly the same, cfupdate won't work. try using cfquery instead ... more flexibility.. and WHOA! you might learn something.:-) j - Original Message - From: Corey Yiap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 2:36 PM Subject: RE: Access Question I'm using CFMX. My query is pretty simple CFUPDATE DATASOURCE=profiles TABLENAME=Site and CFINSERT DATASOURCE=profiles TABLENAME=Site. The fields missed are pretty consistent, but there were no error. It just doesn't write/show in the database. I got the confirm page that it was successfully updated or inserted every time. corey -Original Message- From: jon hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 11:04 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Access Question Some questions. Which CF version? Can we see the queries? Code good, theory unproductive ;) Are the fields that get missed consistent? Are you able to reproduce the error, and if so what does the query look like in the debug? -- jon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, August 9, 2002, 1:48:00 PM, you wrote: CY I'm doing a project the has INSERT INTO, UPDATE and DELETE forms. My CY question is when I do my INSERT INTO or UPDATE, not all of my table form CY fields get inserted or updated. I can't figured out the glitch, sometimes CY it's fine and other times it would miss a couple of fields. How can I make CY sure that every fields get inserted or updated? and is there a connection CY string I need to put in to make it more reliable? CY Thanks, CY corey CY __ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access Question
Yep, CFUPDATE is one of those tags you really shouldnt use :-) -Original Message- From: JLH All Turbo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 August 2002 19:38 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Access Question with cfupdate, you have to name the form fields the same as the table fields. if they aren't spelled exactly the same, cfupdate won't work. try using cfquery instead ... more flexibility.. and WHOA! you might learn something.:-) j - Original Message - From: Corey Yiap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 2:36 PM Subject: RE: Access Question I'm using CFMX. My query is pretty simple CFUPDATE DATASOURCE=profiles TABLENAME=Site and CFINSERT DATASOURCE=profiles TABLENAME=Site. The fields missed are pretty consistent, but there were no error. It just doesn't write/show in the database. I got the confirm page that it was successfully updated or inserted every time. corey -Original Message- From: jon hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 11:04 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Access Question Some questions. Which CF version? Can we see the queries? Code good, theory unproductive ;) Are the fields that get missed consistent? Are you able to reproduce the error, and if so what does the query look like in the debug? -- jon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, August 9, 2002, 1:48:00 PM, you wrote: CY I'm doing a project the has INSERT INTO, UPDATE and DELETE forms. My CY question is when I do my INSERT INTO or UPDATE, not all of my table form CY fields get inserted or updated. I can't figured out the glitch, sometimes CY it's fine and other times it would miss a couple of fields. How can I make CY sure that every fields get inserted or updated? and is there a connection CY string I need to put in to make it more reliable? CY Thanks, CY corey CY __ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access Question
Try: SELECT* FROM messages WHERE message_date = #CreateODBCDate(attributes.datebox)# H. Howard Owens Internet Operations Coordinator www.insidevc.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: GoCatGo1956 -Original Message- From: Greg Luce [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 5:45 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Access Question I haven't used access much, so I'm sure this is going to sound dumb, but can you think of a reason that I get 0 records for this query when I can see there's a record in the db with a date of 10/18/2001? SELECT* FROM messages WHERE message_date = #attributes.datebox# The debugging shows: SQL = SELECT * FROM messages WHERE message_date = 10/18/2001 If I use single quotes around #attributes.datebox# it gives me an error saying datatype mismatch. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Access Question
This is what works for me. I don't know if it's the best way but it seems to work fine with access and ODBC drivers. Good Luck David DT = #CREATEODBCDATE(FORM.P_DATE)# - Original Message - From: Greg Luce [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 5:43 PM Subject: Access Question I haven't used access much, so I'm sure this is going to sound dumb, but can you think of a reason that I get 0 records for this query when I can see there's a record in the db with a date of 10/18/2001? SELECT* FROM messages WHERE message_date = #attributes.datebox# The debugging shows: SQL = SELECT * FROM messages WHERE message_date = 10/18/2001 If I use single quotes around #attributes.datebox# it gives me an error saying datatype mismatch. ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access Question
Like I said earlier: If I use single quotes around #attributes.datebox# it gives me an error saying datatype mismatch. I just disregarded using access and made a SQL Server db for it. It works in SQL Server. Greg Luce 954-763-4504 It's doing the math. It thinks 10/18/2001 is 10 divided by 18 divided by 2001. Use single quotes. Bryan Love Macromedia Certified Professional Internet Application Developer / Database Analyst Telecommunication Systems Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] What father would hesitate to say 'if there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace'? - Thomas Paine, An American Crisis -Original Message- From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 5:43 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Access Question I haven't used access much, so I'm sure this is going to sound dumb, but can you think of a reason that I get 0 records for this query when I can see there's a record in the db with a date of 10/18/2001? SELECT* FROM messages WHERE message_date = #attributes.datebox# The debugging shows: SQL = SELECT * FROM messages WHERE message_date = 10/18/2001 If I use single quotes around #attributes.datebox# it gives me an error saying datatype mismatch. ~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access Question
Try ... WHERE message_date = '#attributes.datebox#' -Original Message- From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 5:45 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Access Question I haven't used access much, so I'm sure this is going to sound dumb, but can you think of a reason that I get 0 records for this query when I can see there's a record in the db with a date of 10/18/2001? SELECT* FROM messages WHERE message_date = #attributes.datebox# The debugging shows: SQL = SELECT * FROM messages WHERE message_date = 10/18/2001 If I use single quotes around #attributes.datebox# it gives me an error saying datatype mismatch. ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access Question
That LOOKS like it should work. What is the column's datatype, and did you try #CreateODBCDate(attributes.datebox)# ? John McKown -Original Message- From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 8:43 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Access Question I haven't used access much, so I'm sure this is going to sound dumb, but can you think of a reason that I get 0 records for this query when I can see there's a record in the db with a date of 10/18/2001? SELECT* FROM messages WHERE message_date = #attributes.datebox# The debugging shows: SQL = SELECT * FROM messages WHERE message_date = 10/18/2001 If I use single quotes around #attributes.datebox# it gives me an error saying datatype mismatch. ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access Question
Greg Try the following - should work. SELECT* FROM messages WHERE message_date = #CreateODBCDate(attributes.datebox)# one word of warning this may or may not take the time into consideration, if you test this and it still does not work correctly you'll actually have to use the between keyword to check for messages between (attributes.datebox) and (attributes.datebox - 24 hours)to take account of this. Hope that makes sense. Kola -Original Message- From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 19 October 2001 01:45 To: CF-Talk Subject: Access Question I haven't used access much, so I'm sure this is going to sound dumb, but can you think of a reason that I get 0 records for this query when I can see there's a record in the db with a date of 10/18/2001? SELECT* FROM messages WHERE message_date = #attributes.datebox# The debugging shows: SQL = SELECT * FROM messages WHERE message_date = 10/18/2001 If I use single quotes around #attributes.datebox# it gives me an error saying datatype mismatch. ~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Access Question
USE #CreateODBCDate(attributes.datebox)# - Original Message - From: Bryan Love [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 4:40 PM Subject: RE: Access Question It's doing the math. It thinks 10/18/2001 is 10 divided by 18 divided by 2001. Use single quotes. Bryan Love Macromedia Certified Professional Internet Application Developer / Database Analyst Telecommunication Systems Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] What father would hesitate to say 'if there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace'? - Thomas Paine, An American Crisis -Original Message- From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 5:43 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Access Question I haven't used access much, so I'm sure this is going to sound dumb, but can you think of a reason that I get 0 records for this query when I can see there's a record in the db with a date of 10/18/2001? SELECT* FROM messages WHERE message_date = #attributes.datebox# The debugging shows: SQL = SELECT * FROM messages WHERE message_date = 10/18/2001 If I use single quotes around #attributes.datebox# it gives me an error saying datatype mismatch. ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access Question
you could try ensuring that Access reads this as a date by using ODBCDateFormat. Also check that message_date is a date field in your db. Cheers Will -Original Message- From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 19 October 2001 01:45 To: CF-Talk Subject: Access Question I haven't used access much, so I'm sure this is going to sound dumb, but can you think of a reason that I get 0 records for this query when I can see there's a record in the db with a date of 10/18/2001? SELECT* FROM messages WHERE message_date = #attributes.datebox# The debugging shows: SQL = SELECT * FROM messages WHERE message_date = 10/18/2001 If I use single quotes around #attributes.datebox# it gives me an error saying datatype mismatch. ~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access Question
It's doing the math. It thinks 10/18/2001 is 10 divided by 18 divided by 2001. Use single quotes. Bryan Love Macromedia Certified Professional Internet Application Developer / Database Analyst Telecommunication Systems Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] What father would hesitate to say 'if there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace'? - Thomas Paine, An American Crisis -Original Message- From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 5:43 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Access Question I haven't used access much, so I'm sure this is going to sound dumb, but can you think of a reason that I get 0 records for this query when I can see there's a record in the db with a date of 10/18/2001? SELECT* FROM messages WHERE message_date = #attributes.datebox# The debugging shows: SQL = SELECT * FROM messages WHERE message_date = 10/18/2001 If I use single quotes around #attributes.datebox# it gives me an error saying datatype mismatch. ~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access question
If a field in access has never had anything in it at all does it appear as NULL or as "". It appears as null. So would you check it with CFIF FieldName IS "" or would you use CFIF FieldName IS NULL Well, ColdFusion does not support the word "NULL", so you would use the cfif FieldName is "". Or, many people prefer: cfif not len(trim(fieldname)) The latter is boolean and therefore evaluates slightly faster. - Sean ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: Access question
CFIF FieldName IS "" has always worked for me. Shawnea - Original Message - From: "Kevin Schmidt" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "CF-Talk" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 11:08 AM Subject: Access question If a field in access has never had anything in it at all does it appear as NULL or as "". So would you check it with CFIF FieldName IS "" or would you use CFIF FieldName IS NULL Kevin Schmidt, Web Technology Manager Allaire Certified ColdFusion Developer pwb inc. integrated marketing communications 350 S. Main St., Suite 350 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.995.5000 (tel) 734.995.5002 (fax) www.pwb.com ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access question
This is what I use:
CFIF isDefined("form.RefPresDate") AND form.RefPresDate IS NOT
""#CreateODBCDate(form.RefPresDate)#CFELSENull/CFIF,
On Thu, 11 January 2001, "Sean Daniels" wrote:
If a field in access has never had anything in it at all does it appear as
NULL or as "".
It appears as null.
So would you check it with CFIF FieldName IS "" or would you use CFIF
FieldName IS NULL
Well, ColdFusion does not support the word "NULL", so you would use the
cfif FieldName is "". Or, many people prefer: cfif not
len(trim(fieldname))
The latter is boolean and therefore evaluates slightly faster.
- Sean
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access question
FYI: John's solution doesn't work with older (v#?) CF. It counts on the
expression evaluation short circuiting -- in other words if
"form.refpresdate" is not defined, it doesn't attempt to evaluate the rest
of the expression.
Older versions will STILL attempt to evaluate 'form.refpresdate is not ""'
and will throw an error.
Question: Which version of CF first did short-circuit processing?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 8:05 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Access question
This is what I use:
CFIF isDefined("form.RefPresDate") AND form.RefPresDate IS NOT
""#CreateODBCDate(form.RefPresDate)#CFELSENull/CFIF,
On Thu, 11 January 2001, "Sean Daniels" wrote:
If a field in access has never had anything in it at all does it appear
as
NULL or as "".
It appears as null.
So would you check it with CFIF FieldName IS "" or would you use CFIF
FieldName IS NULL
Well, ColdFusion does not support the word "NULL", so you would use the
cfif FieldName is "". Or, many people prefer: cfif not
len(trim(fieldname))
The latter is boolean and therefore evaluates slightly faster.
- Sean
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 hi Jann, I had the same question a couple weeks back. I was told, but I never confirmed, that it was version 4.01 that introduced this functionality. Aaron Johnson, MCSE, MCP+I Allaire Certified ColdFusion Developer MINDSEYE, Inc. phn617.350.0339 fax617.350.8884 icq66172567 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: Access question
How much data is in the table? I would be extremely surprised if this was due to there being too much data in the table. I think the maximum size of an Access mdb is approx 2gb but I aint sure about this. I know that you can have a whole load of records in a table though (millions) not that you'd want to of course for performance reasons. Run some test to pull out records yo know are there. If it finds them then I'll bet that the login details they are using are incorrect. Are you sure that the error message you get implies that no row was found when the query was run. Have you got you db integrity set up so that the login details supplied make up the promary key of the table? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: Access question Hello, I have an Access database of email login addresses in an Access 2000 table. Outside users that have registered enter their login address and then are sent via a .cfm form to a URL. Yesterday my .cfm form started rejecting some users saying it could not find their address in the table. Is it conceivable that Access is now reaching its limit for what I need? I'm presuming now is the time to start using SQL. Any suggestions or hints? Thanks Robert O. HW Wilson -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Access question
Thanks for the quick reply. At this point I am more concerned about simultaneous access. Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this. Thanks Andy. Robert O. -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:49 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question How much data is in the table? I would be extremely surprised if this was due to there being too much data in the table. I think the maximum size of an Access mdb is approx 2gb but I aint sure about this. I know that you can have a whole load of records in a table though (millions) not that you'd want to of course for performance reasons. Run some test to pull out records yo know are there. If it finds them then I'll bet that the login details they are using are incorrect. Are you sure that the error message you get implies that no row was found when the query was run. Have you got you db integrity set up so that the login details supplied make up the promary key of the table? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: Access question Hello, I have an Access database of email login addresses in an Access 2000 table. Outside users that have registered enter their login address and then are sent via a .cfm form to a URL. Yesterday my .cfm form started rejecting some users saying it could not find their address in the table. Is it conceivable that Access is now reaching its limit for what I need? I'm presuming now is the time to start using SQL. Any suggestions or hints? Thanks Robert O. HW Wilson --- - -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. --- --- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Access question
It can handle simultaneous Access. Access is just a toned down version of SQL (which it sounds like you already know). You should base your decision to upsize to SQL purely on the performance of your site and size that your database grows to. As far as simultaneous access is concerned, obviously SQL will be better but may be overkill depending on the amount of traffic that goes through the database. In the words of someone else using this usergroup (I think it was Bill!) - "Don't provide a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem" Apollogies Bill if I miss quoted you! -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 16:05 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Thanks for the quick reply. At this point I am more concerned about simultaneous access. Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this. Thanks Andy. Robert O. -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:49 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question How much data is in the table? I would be extremely surprised if this was due to there being too much data in the table. I think the maximum size of an Access mdb is approx 2gb but I aint sure about this. I know that you can have a whole load of records in a table though (millions) not that you'd want to of course for performance reasons. Run some test to pull out records yo know are there. If it finds them then I'll bet that the login details they are using are incorrect. Are you sure that the error message you get implies that no row was found when the query was run. Have you got you db integrity set up so that the login details supplied make up the promary key of the table? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: Access question Hello, I have an Access database of email login addresses in an Access 2000 table. Outside users that have registered enter their login address and then are sent via a .cfm form to a URL. Yesterday my .cfm form started rejecting some users saying it could not find their address in the table. Is it conceivable that Access is now reaching its limit for what I need? I'm presuming now is the time to start using SQL. Any suggestions or hints? Thanks Robert O. HW Wilson --- - -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. --- --- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Access question
Sure, it can "handle" simultaneous Access from many users. A bunny might be able to handle a wolf for about 2 seconds, then it dies. Same with Access. I've had sites crash every 2 minutes using Access, move it to SQL and it works fine. Use SQL. Don't screw with Access. AJ -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:27 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question It can handle simultaneous Access. Access is just a toned down version of SQL (which it sounds like you already know). You should base your decision to upsize to SQL purely on the performance of your site and size that your database grows to. As far as simultaneous access is concerned, obviously SQL will be better but may be overkill depending on the amount of traffic that goes through the database. In the words of someone else using this usergroup (I think it was Bill!) - "Don't provide a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem" Apollogies Bill if I miss quoted you! -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 16:05 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Thanks for the quick reply. At this point I am more concerned about simultaneous access. Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this. Thanks Andy. Robert O. -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:49 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question How much data is in the table? I would be extremely surprised if this was due to there being too much data in the table. I think the maximum size of an Access mdb is approx 2gb but I aint sure about this. I know that you can have a whole load of records in a table though (millions) not that you'd want to of course for performance reasons. Run some test to pull out records yo know are there. If it finds them then I'll bet that the login details they are using are incorrect. Are you sure that the error message you get implies that no row was found when the query was run. Have you got you db integrity set up so that the login details supplied make up the promary key of the table? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: Access question Hello, I have an Access database of email login addresses in an Access 2000 table. Outside users that have registered enter their login address and then are sent via a .cfm form to a URL. Yesterday my .cfm form started rejecting some users saying it could not find their address in the table. Is it conceivable that Access is now reaching its limit for what I need? I'm presuming now is the time to start using SQL. Any suggestions or hints? Thanks Robert O. HW Wilson --- - -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. --- --- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Access question
At 10:04 10/12/00 -0500, you wrote: Thanks for the quick reply. At this point I am more concerned about simultaneous access. Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this. I don't think Access can handle much for simultaneous access at all. I would move to MySQL, its free, simple, and plenty robust enough for you. RPS -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Access question
Aaron - I refer you to Bill's excellent quote: "Don't provide a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem" There's no point forking out for a SQL internet license if you can use Access for free and it does the job you need it too. Don't get me wron - I admit SQL is a thousand times better than Access but if you've only got a tiny database, what's the point? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Aaron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Sure, it can "handle" simultaneous Access from many users. A bunny might be able to handle a wolf for about 2 seconds, then it dies. Same with Access. I've had sites crash every 2 minutes using Access, move it to SQL and it works fine. Use SQL. Don't screw with Access. AJ -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:27 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question It can handle simultaneous Access. Access is just a toned down version of SQL (which it sounds like you already know). You should base your decision to upsize to SQL purely on the performance of your site and size that your database grows to. As far as simultaneous access is concerned, obviously SQL will be better but may be overkill depending on the amount of traffic that goes through the database. In the words of someone else using this usergroup (I think it was Bill!) - "Don't provide a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem" Apollogies Bill if I miss quoted you! -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 16:05 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Thanks for the quick reply. At this point I am more concerned about simultaneous access. Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this. Thanks Andy. Robert O. -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:49 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question How much data is in the table? I would be extremely surprised if this was due to there being too much data in the table. I think the maximum size of an Access mdb is approx 2gb but I aint sure about this. I know that you can have a whole load of records in a table though (millions) not that you'd want to of course for performance reasons. Run some test to pull out records yo know are there. If it finds them then I'll bet that the login details they are using are incorrect. Are you sure that the error message you get implies that no row was found when the query was run. Have you got you db integrity set up so that the login details supplied make up the promary key of the table? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: Access question Hello, I have an Access database of email login addresses in an Access 2000 table. Outside users that have registered enter their login address and then are sent via a .cfm form to a URL. Yesterday my .cfm form started rejecting some users saying it could not find their address in the table. Is it conceivable that Access is now reaching its limit for what I need? I'm presuming now is the time to start using SQL. Any suggestions or hints? Thanks Robert O. HW Wilson --- - -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. --- --- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.
RE: Access question
We all must remember Access is mainly a desktop database. It was never designed as a database backend for web data or to withstand simultaneous hits. I used Access as well for the database backend but had so many end user request to the DB that I had to move up to a more robust database backend such as SQL 7.0. Now things are just fine. If you do not make many calls to the DB then Access is fine. But all in all, your decision should be based on the number of hits, the type of data help within the database. Access can hold a vast amount of data. At one time, I had over 600,000 records within ONE table. A total of 12 tables and not quite 1 million records in total but enough to bog access down with the numerous hits. Just my 2 cents! Randy Adkins -Original Message- From: Aaron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:33 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Sure, it can "handle" simultaneous Access from many users. A bunny might be able to handle a wolf for about 2 seconds, then it dies. Same with Access. I've had sites crash every 2 minutes using Access, move it to SQL and it works fine. Use SQL. Don't screw with Access. AJ -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:27 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question It can handle simultaneous Access. Access is just a toned down version of SQL (which it sounds like you already know). You should base your decision to upsize to SQL purely on the performance of your site and size that your database grows to. As far as simultaneous access is concerned, obviously SQL will be better but may be overkill depending on the amount of traffic that goes through the database. In the words of someone else using this usergroup (I think it was Bill!) - "Don't provide a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem" Apollogies Bill if I miss quoted you! -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 16:05 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Thanks for the quick reply. At this point I am more concerned about simultaneous access. Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this. Thanks Andy. Robert O. -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:49 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question How much data is in the table? I would be extremely surprised if this was due to there being too much data in the table. I think the maximum size of an Access mdb is approx 2gb but I aint sure about this. I know that you can have a whole load of records in a table though (millions) not that you'd want to of course for performance reasons. Run some test to pull out records yo know are there. If it finds them then I'll bet that the login details they are using are incorrect. Are you sure that the error message you get implies that no row was found when the query was run. Have you got you db integrity set up so that the login details supplied make up the promary key of the table? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: Access question Hello, I have an Access database of email login addresses in an Access 2000 table. Outside users that have registered enter their login address and then are sent via a .cfm form to a URL. Yesterday my .cfm form started rejecting some users saying it could not find their address in the table. Is it conceivable that Access is now reaching its limit for what I need? I'm presuming now is the time to start using SQL. Any suggestions or hints? Thanks Robert O. HW Wilson --- - -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. --- --- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send
RE: Access question
Hey Andy, I refer you to his original question: "Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this". His "problem" was many users, not a small db. Nonetheless, I agree with Bill's quote. But ask yourself a question, why would you ever propose or use a solution that MIGHT bring CF down? I've never heard of SQL Server bring CF down. I've personally experienced Access bringing CF down. Access is NOT by strict definition a multi user database. SQL is. AJ -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:39 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Aaron - I refer you to Bill's excellent quote: "Don't provide a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem" There's no point forking out for a SQL internet license if you can use Access for free and it does the job you need it too. Don't get me wron - I admit SQL is a thousand times better than Access but if you've only got a tiny database, what's the point? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Aaron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Sure, it can "handle" simultaneous Access from many users. A bunny might be able to handle a wolf for about 2 seconds, then it dies. Same with Access. I've had sites crash every 2 minutes using Access, move it to SQL and it works fine. Use SQL. Don't screw with Access. AJ -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:27 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question It can handle simultaneous Access. Access is just a toned down version of SQL (which it sounds like you already know). You should base your decision to upsize to SQL purely on the performance of your site and size that your database grows to. As far as simultaneous access is concerned, obviously SQL will be better but may be overkill depending on the amount of traffic that goes through the database. In the words of someone else using this usergroup (I think it was Bill!) - "Don't provide a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem" Apollogies Bill if I miss quoted you! -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 16:05 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Thanks for the quick reply. At this point I am more concerned about simultaneous access. Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this. Thanks Andy. Robert O. -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:49 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question How much data is in the table? I would be extremely surprised if this was due to there being too much data in the table. I think the maximum size of an Access mdb is approx 2gb but I aint sure about this. I know that you can have a whole load of records in a table though (millions) not that you'd want to of course for performance reasons. Run some test to pull out records yo know are there. If it finds them then I'll bet that the login details they are using are incorrect. Are you sure that the error message you get implies that no row was found when the query was run. Have you got you db integrity set up so that the login details supplied make up the promary key of the table? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: Access question Hello, I have an Access database of email login addresses in an Access 2000 table. Outside users that have registered enter their login address and then are sent via a .cfm form to a URL. Yesterday my .cfm form started rejecting some users saying it could not find their address in the table. Is it conceivable that Access is now reaching its limit for what I need? I'm presuming now is the time to start using SQL. Any suggestions or hints? Thanks Robert O. HW Wilson --- - -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. --- --- Archives: htt
RE: Access question
The question isn't "How much data do I need to have before I move to SQL". The real question should be "What am I trying to do with this data and how many people are trying to do it" This is what you should be asking yourself in order to determine when to upgrade to SQL, although the two usually go hand in hand. -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Randy Adkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:48 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question We all must remember Access is mainly a desktop database. It was never designed as a database backend for web data or to withstand simultaneous hits. I used Access as well for the database backend but had so many end user request to the DB that I had to move up to a more robust database backend such as SQL 7.0. Now things are just fine. If you do not make many calls to the DB then Access is fine. But all in all, your decision should be based on the number of hits, the type of data help within the database. Access can hold a vast amount of data. At one time, I had over 600,000 records within ONE table. A total of 12 tables and not quite 1 million records in total but enough to bog access down with the numerous hits. Just my 2 cents! Randy Adkins -Original Message- From: Aaron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:33 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Sure, it can "handle" simultaneous Access from many users. A bunny might be able to handle a wolf for about 2 seconds, then it dies. Same with Access. I've had sites crash every 2 minutes using Access, move it to SQL and it works fine. Use SQL. Don't screw with Access. AJ -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:27 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question It can handle simultaneous Access. Access is just a toned down version of SQL (which it sounds like you already know). You should base your decision to upsize to SQL purely on the performance of your site and size that your database grows to. As far as simultaneous access is concerned, obviously SQL will be better but may be overkill depending on the amount of traffic that goes through the database. In the words of someone else using this usergroup (I think it was Bill!) - "Don't provide a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem" Apollogies Bill if I miss quoted you! -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 16:05 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Thanks for the quick reply. At this point I am more concerned about simultaneous access. Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this. Thanks Andy. Robert O. -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:49 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question How much data is in the table? I would be extremely surprised if this was due to there being too much data in the table. I think the maximum size of an Access mdb is approx 2gb but I aint sure about this. I know that you can have a whole load of records in a table though (millions) not that you'd want to of course for performance reasons. Run some test to pull out records yo know are there. If it finds them then I'll bet that the login details they are using are incorrect. Are you sure that the error message you get implies that no row was found when the query was run. Have you got you db integrity set up so that the login details supplied make up the promary key of the table? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: Access question Hello, I have an Access database of email login addresses in an Access 2000 table. Outside users that have registered enter their login address and then are sent via a .cfm form to a URL. Yesterday my .cfm form started rejecting some users saying it could not find their address in the table. Is it conceivable that Access is now reaching its limit for what I need? I'm presuming now is the time to start using SQL. Any suggestions or hints? Thanks Robert O. HW Wilson --- - -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusi
RE: Access question
There's no point forking out for a SQL internet license if you can use Access for free and it does the job you need it too. Don't get me wron - I admit SQL is a thousand times better than Access but if you've only got a tiny database, what's the point? Tiny or large, Access can not handle simultaneous accesses. The original post said "start using SQL". I assumed this to be msql or MySQL or even PostgreSQL. It looks like everyone else assumed MS SQL server, which is probably what the author meant. (but did not specifiy) Still, MySQL will run on winblows and is free. Actually now that I think about it I think its free unless you run it on windows, in that case its a few hundred or thousand $$ or something... but they may have removed that restriction. RPS -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Access question
We're in the process of migrating to SQL 7 from Access 2000. Our largest table has about 990,000 records and although it does crash, it isn't a daily thing. BTW-We're accessing the db constantly; with several thousand customers hitting it from the web side daily, and 40+ backend connections to it. -Original Message- From: Randy Adkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:48 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question We all must remember Access is mainly a desktop database. It was never designed as a database backend for web data or to withstand simultaneous hits. I used Access as well for the database backend but had so many end user request to the DB that I had to move up to a more robust database backend such as SQL 7.0. Now things are just fine. If you do not make many calls to the DB then Access is fine. But all in all, your decision should be based on the number of hits, the type of data help within the database. Access can hold a vast amount of data. At one time, I had over 600,000 records within ONE table. A total of 12 tables and not quite 1 million records in total but enough to bog access down with the numerous hits. Just my 2 cents! Randy Adkins -Original Message- From: Aaron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:33 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Sure, it can "handle" simultaneous Access from many users. A bunny might be able to handle a wolf for about 2 seconds, then it dies. Same with Access. I've had sites crash every 2 minutes using Access, move it to SQL and it works fine. Use SQL. Don't screw with Access. AJ -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:27 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question It can handle simultaneous Access. Access is just a toned down version of SQL (which it sounds like you already know). You should base your decision to upsize to SQL purely on the performance of your site and size that your database grows to. As far as simultaneous access is concerned, obviously SQL will be better but may be overkill depending on the amount of traffic that goes through the database. In the words of someone else using this usergroup (I think it was Bill!) - "Don't provide a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem" Apollogies Bill if I miss quoted you! -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 16:05 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Thanks for the quick reply. At this point I am more concerned about simultaneous access. Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this. Thanks Andy. Robert O. -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:49 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question How much data is in the table? I would be extremely surprised if this was due to there being too much data in the table. I think the maximum size of an Access mdb is approx 2gb but I aint sure about this. I know that you can have a whole load of records in a table though (millions) not that you'd want to of course for performance reasons. Run some test to pull out records yo know are there. If it finds them then I'll bet that the login details they are using are incorrect. Are you sure that the error message you get implies that no row was found when the query was run. Have you got you db integrity set up so that the login details supplied make up the promary key of the table? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: Access question Hello, I have an Access database of email login addresses in an Access 2000 table. Outside users that have registered enter their login address and then are sent via a .cfm form to a URL. Yesterday my .cfm form started rejecting some users saying it could not find their address in the table. Is it conceivable that Access is now reaching its limit for what I need? I'm presuming now is the time to start using SQL. Any suggestions or hints? Thanks Robert O. HW Wilson --- - -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/c f_talk or send a message
RE: Access question
Fair enoughbut it all depends on what many is. If a client comes to me asking for a small, half a dozen page data driven web site where there is very little dynamic content why would I suggest using SQL. The price of the DB software would probably be more than the total development for the site! There would be litte or no danger of Access bringing down CF providing that traffic was monitoredsure if it runs like a dog because of loads of hits then move to SQL I developed a small site for a TV company which had thousands of hits a day while the series was running. They updated the content on the site by changing the samll amount of data stored in an Access database. Site worked fine...no probs. SQL would have been a coplete overkill I disagree with your comment "Access is NOT by strict definition a multi user database. SQL is." Access is a multiuser database. Just that SQL is a better one -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Aaron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:47 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Hey Andy, I refer you to his original question: "Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this". His "problem" was many users, not a small db. Nonetheless, I agree with Bill's quote. But ask yourself a question, why would you ever propose or use a solution that MIGHT bring CF down? I've never heard of SQL Server bring CF down. I've personally experienced Access bringing CF down. Access is NOT by strict definition a multi user database. SQL is. AJ -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:39 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Aaron - I refer you to Bill's excellent quote: "Don't provide a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem" There's no point forking out for a SQL internet license if you can use Access for free and it does the job you need it too. Don't get me wron - I admit SQL is a thousand times better than Access but if you've only got a tiny database, what's the point? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Aaron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Sure, it can "handle" simultaneous Access from many users. A bunny might be able to handle a wolf for about 2 seconds, then it dies. Same with Access. I've had sites crash every 2 minutes using Access, move it to SQL and it works fine. Use SQL. Don't screw with Access. AJ -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:27 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question It can handle simultaneous Access. Access is just a toned down version of SQL (which it sounds like you already know). You should base your decision to upsize to SQL purely on the performance of your site and size that your database grows to. As far as simultaneous access is concerned, obviously SQL will be better but may be overkill depending on the amount of traffic that goes through the database. In the words of someone else using this usergroup (I think it was Bill!) - "Don't provide a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem" Apollogies Bill if I miss quoted you! -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 16:05 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Thanks for the quick reply. At this point I am more concerned about simultaneous access. Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this. Thanks Andy. Robert O. -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:49 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question How much data is in the table? I would be extremely surprised if this was due to there being too much data in the table. I think the maximum size of an Access mdb is approx 2gb but I aint sure about this. I know that you can have a whole load of records in a table though (millions) not that you'd want to of course for performance reasons. Run some test to pull out records yo know are there. If it finds them then I'll bet that the login details they are using are incorrect. Are you sure that the error message you get implies that no row was found when the query was run. Have you got you db integrity set up so that the
RE: Access question
I refer you to his original question: "Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this". His "problem" was many users, not a small db. His problem was actually that users were not getting validated correctly, which IMHO probably isn't an error you would likely get due to too many simultaneous users. I know that this has been beaten to death here, but Access will work for many sites. The question of what strength of DB you should use cannot be answered by anyone but the app itself. Test it with both. Try to determine the point at which it will break on Access. The truth is that I hate Access, but a really well designed site with plenty of good query caching and such can handle an enormous load of traffic. It all has to do with the way the app's designed. If it makes tons of DB calls, access will break under a smaller load. If most of the data is cached in app vars or cached queries, it takes a much higher load to break it. -Cameron Cameron Childress ElliptIQ Inc. p.770.460.7277.232 f.770.460.0963 -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Access question
Sorry...Access can handle simultaneous connectionsjust no where near as well as SQL can. Again it all depends on what sort of traffic you expect -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Ryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:52 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question There's no point forking out for a SQL internet license if you can use Access for free and it does the job you need it too. Don't get me wron - I admit SQL is a thousand times better than Access but if you've only got a tiny database, what's the point? Tiny or large, Access can not handle simultaneous accesses. The original post said "start using SQL". I assumed this to be msql or MySQL or even PostgreSQL. It looks like everyone else assumed MS SQL server, which is probably what the author meant. (but did not specifiy) Still, MySQL will run on winblows and is free. Actually now that I think about it I think its free unless you run it on windows, in that case its a few hundred or thousand $$ or something... but they may have removed that restriction. RPS -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Access question
The thing is with Access is that is a good rad tool which sits on your desktop and lets you play around with relational data and prototype little things; but when you come to use the system - more than a few users means big trouble - I (YES ME) am personally an anti access person. But there is a big step inbetween Access SQL server and neither of them are that brilliant, don't forget that FoxPro sits in-between the two and I have seen a respectable FoxPro application (once). I personally am looking at what to do with an intranet site that has outgrown access. Open source is great (love it to bits) but Oracle seems to be the best performance and certain versions can be brought very cheaply. But again Access to Oracle is a big step and could be a nasty learning curve. -- Gavin Lilley Internet / Intranet Developer Halesowen College Tel: 0121 550 1451 Ext: 330 -Original Message- From: Aaron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:47 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Hey Andy, I refer you to his original question: "Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this". His "problem" was many users, not a small db. Nonetheless, I agree with Bill's quote. But ask yourself a question, why would you ever propose or use a solution that MIGHT bring CF down? I've never heard of SQL Server bring CF down. I've personally experienced Access bringing CF down. Access is NOT by strict definition a multi user database. SQL is. AJ -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:39 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Aaron - I refer you to Bill's excellent quote: "Don't provide a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem" There's no point forking out for a SQL internet license if you can use Access for free and it does the job you need it too. Don't get me wron - I admit SQL is a thousand times better than Access but if you've only got a tiny database, what's the point? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Aaron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Sure, it can "handle" simultaneous Access from many users. A bunny might be able to handle a wolf for about 2 seconds, then it dies. Same with Access. I've had sites crash every 2 minutes using Access, move it to SQL and it works fine. Use SQL. Don't screw with Access. AJ -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:27 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question It can handle simultaneous Access. Access is just a toned down version of SQL (which it sounds like you already know). You should base your decision to upsize to SQL purely on the performance of your site and size that your database grows to. As far as simultaneous access is concerned, obviously SQL will be better but may be overkill depending on the amount of traffic that goes through the database. In the words of someone else using this usergroup (I think it was Bill!) - "Don't provide a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem" Apollogies Bill if I miss quoted you! -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 16:05 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Thanks for the quick reply. At this point I am more concerned about simultaneous access. Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this. Thanks Andy. Robert O. -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:49 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question How much data is in the table? I would be extremely surprised if this was due to there being too much data in the table. I think the maximum size of an Access mdb is approx 2gb but I aint sure about this. I know that you can have a whole load of records in a table though (millions) not that you'd want to of course for performance reasons. Run some test to pull out records yo know are there. If it finds them then I'll bet that the login details they are using are incorrect. Are you sure that the error message you get implies that no row was found when the query was run. Have you got you db integrity set up so that the login details supplied make up the promary key of the table? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd --
RE: Access question
Spot on Cameronyou've hit the nail on the head an touched on something that we haven't really emphasied enough in this thread and that is how your CF code makes calls to the database. Also doesn't CF restirct the amount of simultaneous connections into a db anyway? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Cameron Childress [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 16:05 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question I refer you to his original question: "Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this". His "problem" was many users, not a small db. His problem was actually that users were not getting validated correctly, which IMHO probably isn't an error you would likely get due to too many simultaneous users. I know that this has been beaten to death here, but Access will work for many sites. The question of what strength of DB you should use cannot be answered by anyone but the app itself. Test it with both. Try to determine the point at which it will break on Access. The truth is that I hate Access, but a really well designed site with plenty of good query caching and such can handle an enormous load of traffic. It all has to do with the way the app's designed. If it makes tons of DB calls, access will break under a smaller load. If most of the data is cached in app vars or cached queries, it takes a much higher load to break it. -Cameron Cameron Childress ElliptIQ Inc. p.770.460.7277.232 f.770.460.0963 -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
Re: Access question
on 10/13/00 12:51 AM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still, MySQL will run on winblows and is free. Actually now that I think about it I think its free unless you run it on windows, in that case its a few hundred or thousand $$ or something... but they may have removed that restriction. MySQL has been GPL'ed and it's now free on all platforms AFAIK. -- Rob Keniger big bang solutions mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigbang.net.au -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Access question
I think this is more of a project by project discussion. There cant be a set of truths that can be applied to everything, customer is the one to make that descision anyways: "Right now you don't get many hits on your server, we can use access as the main database to save you money, access is a decent database but not as good as SQL Server, while I suggest SQL server the overhead cost of implementing it will cost x dollars. This may or may not be within your budget at the moment. Eventually, if you are planning on making this site popular you will have to go with SQL, Oracle, DB2 or some other higher end database program, you can either spend this money now or later, it is up to you." But I use SQL whenever possible, but if you let them know about access then you can come back in 6 months to set up SQL and get a few extra pennies :) -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Access question
Now, I *had* heard of Access 2K having slight problems with simultanious requests. If, when you set up your ODBC source, you limit concurrent connections to 1, that will keep that problem from happening. Liaible to slow you down, some, though. All depends on how much traffic you're getting, I think. Willy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/12/00 8:57:04 AM Fair enoughbut it all depends on what many is. If a client comes to me asking for a small, half a dozen page data driven web site where there is very little dynamic content why would I suggest using SQL. The price of the DB software would probably be more than the total development for the site! There would be litte or no danger of Access bringing down CF providing that traffic was monitoredsure if it runs like a dog because of loads of hits then move to SQL I developed a small site for a TV company which had thousands of hits a day while the series was running. They updated the content on the site by changing the samll amount of data stored in an Access database. Site worked fine...no probs. SQL would have been a coplete overkill I disagree with your comment "Access is NOT by strict definition a multi user database. SQL is." Access is a multiuser database. Just that SQL is a better one -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Aaron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:47 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Hey Andy, I refer you to his original question: "Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this". His "problem" was many users, not a small db. Nonetheless, I agree with Bill's quote. But ask yourself a question, why would you ever propose or use a solution that MIGHT bring CF down? I've never heard of SQL Server bring CF down. I've personally experienced Access bringing CF down. Access is NOT by strict definition a multi user database. SQL is. AJ -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:39 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Aaron - I refer you to Bill's excellent quote: "Don't provide a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem" There's no point forking out for a SQL internet license if you can use Access for free and it does the job you need it too. Don't get me wron - I admit SQL is a thousand times better than Access but if you've only got a tiny database, what's the point? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Aaron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Sure, it can "handle" simultaneous Access from many users. A bunny might be able to handle a wolf for about 2 seconds, then it dies. Same with Access. I've had sites crash every 2 minutes using Access, move it to SQL and it works fine. Use SQL. Don't screw with Access. AJ -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:27 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question It can handle simultaneous Access. Access is just a toned down version of SQL (which it sounds like you already know). You should base your decision to upsize to SQL purely on the performance of your site and size that your database grows to. As far as simultaneous access is concerned, obviously SQL will be better but may be overkill depending on the amount of traffic that goes through the database. In the words of someone else using this usergroup (I think it was Bill!) - "Don't provide a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem" Apollogies Bill if I miss quoted you! -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 16:05 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Thanks for the quick reply. At this point I am more concerned about simultaneous access. Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this. Thanks Andy. Robert O. -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:49 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question How much data is in the table? I would be extremely surprised if this was due to there being too much data in the table. I think the maximum size of an Access mdb is approx 2gb but I aint sure about this. I know that you can have a whole load of records in a table though (millio
Re: Access question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 MySQL is now GPL (or similar) on Windows as well as Unix/Linux. c -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.8ckt - http://irfaiad.virtualave.net/ Comment: PGP Signed for message verification and/or encryption Comment: KeyID: 0xD68B61E851046CFD iQA/AwUBOeXlpNaLYehRBGz9EQLgxgCfVn0SxVwOQAiUCsLSjxHBPvXmfGUAoKw1 XIT7iUAEGXOq9z4VCkj/ISS3 =zkCh -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
Re: Access question
At least in some previous versions, I understood MySQL could not do the following: WHERE ID IN (12,45,78,999,etc) Apart from this (if the limitation still exists, for which there's a workaround) how practical would it be to have the "offline updateable version of the database" in SQL7 and the "online read-only version of the database" (updated once a day) in MySQL That is, how practical is to export a DB from SQL7 and import it into MySQL on a daily basis? In addition, I understand MySQL's reputation is that it's very fast on read type SQL. Are there any agreed-upon benchmarks in addition to the conventional wisdom? best, paul PS Rob: Do you have any thoughts on TextDB for full-text indexing? It does seem fast to me. http://www.webest.dk At 01:10 AM 10/13/00 +1000, you wrote: on 10/13/00 12:51 AM, Ryan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still, MySQL will run on winblows and is free. Actually now that I think about it I think its free unless you run it on windows, in that case its a few hundred or thousand $$ or something... but they may have removed that restriction. MySQL has been GPL'ed and it's now free on all platforms AFAIK. -- Rob Keniger big bang solutions mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigbang.net.au -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Access question
Not enough data to give you a logical answer or suggestion. Can you create a test account for us to check out on the web somewhere? -- Mark Warrick Phone: (714) 547-5386 Efax.com Fax: (801) 730-7289 Personal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal URL: http://www.warrick.net Business Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Business URL: http://www.fusioneers.com ICQ: 346566 -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 7:33 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Access question Hello, I have an Access database of email login addresses in an Access 2000 table. Outside users that have registered enter their login address and then are sent via a .cfm form to a URL. Yesterday my .cfm form started rejecting some users saying it could not find their address in the table. Is it conceivable that Access is now reaching its limit for what I need? I'm presuming now is the time to start using SQL. Any suggestions or hints? Thanks Robert O. HW Wilson -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf _talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebarRstsbodyRsts/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Access question
Access is designed for SMALL offices where the number of read/write operations at any one time are relatively low. The size of the database isn't so much of a concern as opposed to the complexity of it. SQL is your upgrade path when you've exhausted all the performance upgrades you can do on your code. ---mark -- Mark Warrick Phone: (714) 547-5386 Efax.com Fax: (801) 730-7289 Personal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal URL: http://www.warrick.net Business Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Business URL: http://www.fusioneers.com ICQ: 346566 -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:05 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question Thanks for the quick reply. At this point I am more concerned about simultaneous access. Can it handle simultaneous access from many users or is SQL better for this. Thanks Andy. Robert O. -Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:49 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Access question How much data is in the table? I would be extremely surprised if this was due to there being too much data in the table. I think the maximum size of an Access mdb is approx 2gb but I aint sure about this. I know that you can have a whole load of records in a table though (millions) not that you'd want to of course for performance reasons. Run some test to pull out records yo know are there. If it finds them then I'll bet that the login details they are using are incorrect. Are you sure that the error message you get implies that no row was found when the query was run. Have you got you db integrity set up so that the login details supplied make up the promary key of the table? -- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Robert Orlini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 October 2000 15:33 To: CF-Talk Subject: Access question Hello, I have an Access database of email login addresses in an Access 2000 table. Outside users that have registered enter their login address and then are sent via a .cfm form to a URL. Yesterday my .cfm form started rejecting some users saying it could not find their address in the table. Is it conceivable that Access is now reaching its limit for what I need? I'm presuming now is the time to start using SQL. Any suggestions or hints? Thanks Robert O. HW Wilson --- - -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/c f_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. --- --- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebarRstsbodyRsts/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
