Wrox Programmer Forums

Need to download code?

View our list of code downloads.

Go Back   Wrox Programmer Forums > Visual Basic > VB 6 Visual Basic 6 > VB Components
Password Reminder
Register
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read
VB Components Issues specific to components in VB.
Welcome to the p2p.wrox.com Forums.

You are currently viewing the VB Components section of the Wrox Programmer to Programmer discussions. This is a community of tens of thousands of software programmers and website developers including Wrox book authors and readers. As a guest, you can read any forum posting. By joining today you can post your own programming questions, respond to other developers’ questions, and eliminate the ads that are displayed to guests. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free .
DRM-free e-books 300x50
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old May 17th, 2004, 04:59 PM
Authorized User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: , , .
Posts: 30
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Comparison between Stored Procedure and MTS COM

Please excuse my language. It may look a little confuse.

I know a little bit about SQL Stored Procedure and even less in MTS COM but I'm learning.

I'm implementing ASP web-based to pull data from MS SQL 2000. I have read from some website talking about ASP performance and I did found some topic that suggest try to use stored procedure as much as possible and also paging through records using a stored procedure.

I just curious that what if I create MTS COM (and clear it) 10 times in same ASP script compare with paging through records using a stored procedure (I actually didn't paging just executed stored procedure to get result and show it in ASP.) also 10 times.

- Would it make any difference in terms of server resource usage?
- How about server traffic? Would it still make a trip between IIS & SQL Server same amount of times if I still use MTS COM?
- Or should I use MTS COM instead?

Please advice,
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old June 25th, 2004, 05:23 PM
tnd tnd is offline
Authorized User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: , , .
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

It does have some big differences depending on how your ASP page will work. In general if you are not paging then a persistable COM object is better. That's assuming when you said you clear the COM, you are setting the reference in you ASP to NULL but not actually destroying the object completely. The next time your ASP page is served, the COM object won't have to re-query SQL for the data. But if your data is huge then paging would be faster since much much less data needs to be transferred between SQL and IIS. Of course you could create multiple COM objects to store the pages of SQL data.

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
stored procedure prashant_telkar SQL Server 2000 1 July 9th, 2007 07:57 AM
Stored Procedure jezywrap SQL Server ASP 1 January 3rd, 2007 12:29 AM
Stored Procedure Help. midway11 SQL Language 3 November 20th, 2006 06:36 AM
Stored Procedure kk_kumar99 Beginning VB 6 1 October 30th, 2006 12:50 PM
stored procedure lokey VB How-To 7 June 30th, 2005 12:37 AM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.