Could someone answer a stupid dgv question?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joyce
  • Start date Start date
J

Joyce

Hi, when inserting rows from an unbound datagridview to a database I
do something like:

for each row...
process data
next

in the "process data" routine I call a routine that goes through this
whole scenerio for each row:

Private Sub ProcessData
dim connection string,
dim connection object,
open connection,
build command object,
update the qty field in another table from the current row
insert row,
close connection
End Sub

Stupid question:
Is it necessary to go through all these steps for each row or should
the "for each row..next" routine be between the open and close
connection statements in the "process data" routine described above?

Thanks,
--Joyce P.
 
Ah no. The ENTIRE operation should be done on the server in a stored
procedure.

--
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________
 
Bill, the command object in the "process data" routine does use a
stored procedure but I still connect/close through each iteration. I'm
trying to conceptualize doing the ENTIRE operation as a stored
procedure as you suggest.

Sounds like operation should do this:

Client fills rows (eg order details)
Client clicks "process" button
Process button invokes stored procedure on server
Stored procedure contains sql code to
get the rows
loop through the rows
update qty in other table
insert the row
next row

Is this more or less the correct scenario?
Do you know of an exmple online?

Thanks again,
--Joyce
 
Well sort of. I'm not at all in favor of doing row munging that can (should)
be done on the server. Consider that an UPDATE statement can have very
complex WHERE and SET clauses. It can use the JOIN engine to pull together
data from several tables without having to create a cursor (which is what
you're suggesting). I would dig into the TSQL UPDATE statement on Books
Online (the SQL Server doc) which discusses these approaches in some detail.

hth

--
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________
 
Joyce,

You make me curious, if you want to use the your datagridview connected to a
database, than why you use it not in combination with a bound datatable.
They did a lot of work to make that easy for us.

Cor
 
Cor, the reason I have done things the way I have is that I need to
have something up and running, recording the line details and updating
the quantity field in the Products table.

I have been trying to do it the "easy" way since December. You and
others here have been very helpful but tableadapters, bindindsources
etc. are very strange when you first approach them.

Slowly things are beginning to come clear to me but I can't learn if I
can't even get started. Yesterday I managed to achieve my goal of
inserting and updating. Now I can learn to do it the "easy" way.

If you saw the Slashdot posts yesterday you will understand that I am
not the only one who finds this convoluted and frustrating.

Nevertheless, I am not giving up. Now that my app is working I can
slow down and relax and paly with vb.net 2005. I just hope my efforts
aren't wasted when Microsoft abandons vb due to lack of interest by
the wider developer community.

--Joyce P.
 
Joyce,

Do you have a link for me, about this.
If you saw the Slashdot posts yesterday you will understand that I am
not the only one who finds this convoluted and frustrating.
Click to expand...
I am at TechEd in Amsterdam today, where I heard the opposite from what you
wrote, so you make me curious.

Can you reply your question please a little bit more again, than I will try
to find an answer.

Cor
 
Joyce,
http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/06/1435245
Click to expand...

That are just replies as some do on politicla blogs. However, it seems that
C# people have forever to make it clear for themselves that they made the
right choose and place everywhere this kind of messages. You see seldom done
this spontaneously by vb.net developers. (You see it is wel done often by
Linux users despite that 90% of the clientcomputers is Windows.).

Cor
 
The only way the new datatable/binding sources/tableGizmos/etc/etc are
"easy" is if you use the wizards and don't need to add any
logic/complexity beyobnd one table - otherwise it is a bottomless pit
IMO.

Unfortunately it appears VB was rewritten by folks that never used VB in
the real world but read about it in books. They rewrote the databound
stuff that was written about over and over (but never used in the real
world) while they should have been creating ways to make "unbound" forms
easier to write.

We tried using the VB data stuff in a VB6 fat client conversion with
about 200 forms/100+ tables and gave up in short order. We had to
re-create the VB6 unbound form methods to get anywhere - and we really
wanted bound forms to work. Turned out to be a waste of time.

If it wasn't for the fact that VB6/ActiveX was getting hard to suport on
the newer platforms we would have stayed with it.
 
Back
Top