Recent content by Minty

In my experience (especially with large tables) the joins will be more efficient than the In() clause. If you look at the query plans you will probably see a difference in how it is gathering the results.

My laptop generally sits at about 25-30% memory usage. But some programs will resource hog. A local SQL Server itself is notorious for grabbing as much memory a it can.

Just to confirm I am using the following version : SQL Server Management Studio 22.0.0+103.11205.157 SQL Server Management Objects (SMO) 17.100.87.0+faf3df03cb29335d001e03431e8b1fc042928c03 Microsoft T-SQL Parser...

Depending on how many table objects you have. I would say it's still a little slow. I have an Azure SQL DB I'm working on at the moment - it has 203 tables it opens instantly in both the object explorer and the Explorer Details window. I never use the diagrams so can't comment. Add new column...

Your loop is now creating all the products into one text file, which if I have understood your request, is not what you wanted and not what I suggested. If you need to send them one at a time, your loop needs to include the http: section. I'm not sure I can say this again without sounding like...

Yes, and your loop sends one record at a time doesn't it? Please, please, please, step through your code and watch what it does!!!! Edit: You simply need to move where your loop statement goes to after this line Response = .ResponseText End With

If you always send all the products you don't need the list box, just use your original query without the parameters to restrict its output and loop through it as @CJ_London suggested. The process should simply be Open your recordset of ALL product ID's Loop round it. Finish You already...

Do you ever walk your code to see what is happening? Ask yourself where the follow lines output get used: strWhere = "[ProductID] = " & selectedProductID At no point are you doing anything with this.

@BlueSpruce You have a strong opinion of how this site should operate and what it's apparent "problems" are for someone that has only been here for 5 months. Whilst I agree that some of the technical posts had become too political, there has always been a history of solid debate available...

Be aware that you won't get an elegant capturable error message from Access about the index violation. You'll have to check in the form beforehand for duplication via VBA on a SQL Linked table.

Something well worth noting from a performance perspective is to use named parameters in your pass through routines when running repetitive operations. SQL server will reuse the query plan instead of creating a new one every time. This is a really simplistic example to demonstrate, but instead...

I'm intrigued by what you think this line will achieve: SET [Sales]=Not NZ([Sales],0) I doubt it's what you think? Have you examined the values. Have you tried a simple select query to "see" the possible results? SELECT Sales, Not NZ([Sales],0) as MyNewValue FROM tblProducts

I think 23 years has won... By some considerable margin. 😁

If the combo's are lookups and normally static values then load them into a local cache table on the FE database when you open it. Things like employee lists, state codes, Countries, Currencies etc. that are frequently used and rarely change can and should be loaded into a local lookup table for...

I think I am adding a pretty rare ignore here.