Field Name Speed?
in [General]
|
From: David on 19 Apr 2010 09:16 I've read that when using access fields that: rstOrders.Fields("fldCustomer") is faster than !fldCustomer ================= Question Is this true, and if so why? Thanks David
From: Stefan Hoffmann on 19 Apr 2010 09:26 hi David, On 19.04.2010 15:16, David wrote: > I've read that when using access fields that: > rstOrders.Fields("fldCustomer") > is faster than > !fldCustomer > > Is this true, and if so why? Go and search for 'dot vs bang'... It's basically caused by the fact that the bang'ed access must be resolved at runtime and this is a little bit more complex than enumerating a collection and returning a value. mfG --> stefan <--
From: David on 19 Apr 2010 09:47 Thanks Mr. Hoffmann for responding. Are you saying "bang" is late-bound versus Field early-bound. If so, do you know any article or MSDN reference that refers to this -- or -- the best way to test it? David "Stefan Hoffmann" <ste5an(a)ste5an.de> wrote in message news:%23RmEvP83KHA.4336(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > hi David, > > On 19.04.2010 15:16, David wrote: >> I've read that when using access fields that: >> rstOrders.Fields("fldCustomer") >> is faster than >> !fldCustomer >> >> Is this true, and if so why? > Go and search for 'dot vs bang'... > > It's basically caused by the fact that the bang'ed access must be resolved > at runtime and this is a little bit more complex than enumerating a > collection and returning a value. > > mfG > --> stefan <--
From: Stefan Hoffmann on 19 Apr 2010 09:57 hi David, On 19.04.2010 15:47, David wrote: > Are you saying "bang" is late-bound versus Field early-bound. > If so, do you know any article or MSDN reference that refers to this -- > or -- the best way to test it? Take a closer look at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa210660%28v=office.11%29.aspx seems that I've also mixed it up. mfG --> stefan <--
From: David on 19 Apr 2010 10:12
Thanks for link. Been searching MSDN without any luck. Using Me.("Customer") logically makes sense that it would be slower since a string needs to be allocated versus referring to the field name directly. Unfortuantely they did not specifically address the Fields collection. Whether the logic prevails is a ? David "Stefan Hoffmann" <ste5an(a)ste5an.de> wrote in message news:OTH%23Eh83KHA.348(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > hi David, > > On 19.04.2010 15:47, David wrote: >> Are you saying "bang" is late-bound versus Field early-bound. >> If so, do you know any article or MSDN reference that refers to this -- >> or -- the best way to test it? > Take a closer look at > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa210660%28v=office.11%29.aspx > > seems that I've also mixed it up. > > > mfG > --> stefan <-- |