My problem is that I need to use a access database as a backend for my visual basic.net program.
The database will be accessed by a maximum of 10 users but I want to lock tables when a user is updating a record.
I am unable to use the SQL server at the company due to it storing sensitive information.
I have some basic knowledge of ado.net
I have read many articles but I can't find any articles that say how to lock a access .mdb file using Visual basic.net
I am aware that a SQL server is a better option but this is not possible option for me at the moment
I suspect that your best bet is to add a "Locks" table which contains a record for each table in your database and a flag that indicates if the table is locked or not.
The calling methods would be responsible for checking this table prior to executing their code.
Because you will be working with individual records, the Access record locking mechanism should prevent simultaneous updates of a single record in this table, but if you get a lock, you should probably double-check it after obtaining it to ensure that it is valid.
Related
Desired result and why:
I have a lot of old Access databases that we are trying to get to SQL Server, and I'm essentially trying to make the Access DB the "middleman" so our old programs can still read/write to them but the information will also be saved in SQL Server. We need the middleman because of how interconnected these tables are through various programs we are rewriting in modern languages. Once we rewrite all of them we will cut the cord and live in SQL Server, but this will take a lot of time.
What I've tried:
We tried creating a linked table to SQL Server and renaming it so it would take the place of the original table. After doing this the table stopped receiving data so we quickly reverted back.
In order to investigate this I created Table B which is just another linked table to SQL Server, and then tried using the After Insert macro on Table A to send any new rows to the linked table but nothing happens. If I manually add a record to Table B it carries over to SQL Server just fine, but I can't get Table A to send data to Table B. I created Table C that is just a local access table and if I manually add a record to Table A it does show up in Table C. No errors at all, it just doesn't do what I need it to do.
I'm lost on how to accomplish this and open to any help or suggestions on how to move forward with this. One thing to note though, is that most of the access databases I have are not using forms at all which is I'm trying to take the macro route instead of any VBA. I need these to trigger without any interaction from the user.
You should use the tool dedicated to this task:
SQL Server Migration Assistant for Access (AccessToSQL)
Ok, there are from comments some new and signficant moving parts here.
For example, data is to be migrated to sql server. As noted, EVEN in access land, all and every table needs and should have a PK for the "basic" data base operations. While it is possible to do some work, and say some importing of data, the instant one wants some forms, VBA code and starts to build a working applcation? Then all tables should have a PK.
And of course if you moved the data to sql server, then it not going to make a lot of sense to have OTHER applcations attempt to modify the linked tables in access, since the data is not in Access anymore!!! Those other sources in theory should thus also hit sql server, and not attempt to use what amounts to a link on a linked table.
However, it does depend. For example, if you use vb.net code and say open a access database, you CAN in fact have that vb.net code open a access table, and in fact it can be a linked table. (however, it would make a WHOLE lot more sense for the vb.net code to open and hit sql server - introduction of a link on a link is going to be problematic.
However, in testing, I have found that say vb.net can open a access table, and even if it is a link, then access will translate though the jet engine (the access data engine), and you can do this.
However, data macros and table triggers on existing access tables? They might work on linked tables, but you of course need to ensure that the linked table does allow edits, and allows inserts. Only AFTER one has verified that you can click on a linked table to sql server - can edit, and then add should one mess around with data macros and triggers on say local tables.
it also depends on what the new software tools and platform is being used here.
But, from a basic database point of view - and general data mangement?
All code, and designs should assume, and be designed around the assumption that each row of data has a PK. This is not always possible, but is a RARE use case.
Practical data management - and use of a database should from both table designs, and from workflow designs, and from a developer point of view assume the concept of a PK row id. Without such assumptions, then you not in the software industry anymore - but in a hack field, and one that will result in great future difficulty when attempting to build work flows and build general information systems.
So, with above in mind: Your table B - it has to work as a valid sql server table.
The sql server table(s). They need a PK, and after linking to sql server, you can open up the linked table in access. Test if edits work, test if adding works, and even perhaps test if delete works. Only AFTER such time, do you now want to start testing any code or other operations from the Access client side.
Introduction of using a linked table from another application? That is a foggy area, but I can confirm for example that say .net oleDB provider will and can open a access database and use + consume even linked tables.
You also don't mention if you using sql logon, or windows auth for the sql server linked tables. But if you using sql logons, then when linking a table, you see this check box - and you want to ensure you selected this when linking the table(s) in question:
Note that you ONLY get this prompt on the first time create of the table link - additional use of the linked table manager (such as re-fresh links) does not offer this prompt. If you don't select the save password option, then you often see a sql logon prompt when you attempt to open a linked table in access.
I have a large Oracle source database with many objects and wish to migrate a comparatively small set of table definitions to a SQL Server instance using Microsoft's dedicated migration tool SSMA. I ran the migration tool previously, having to leave it processing overnight due to the quantity of objects. When I tried to save the project, frustratingly, the machine ran out of memory, taking me back to where I started.
I initially connected as SYSTEM, so created a new user that could select only from the tables for migration, along with CREATE SESSION and CONNECT privileges. This failed on connection to Oracle due to the dictionary tables being inaccessible.
I then added granted SELECT ON ANY DICTIONARY to the new user and connected to the Oracle source. This time, the connection was successful, but I believe the entire dictionary is being read due to the amount of time it's already taken to load the objects into SSMA.
What I would like to know is: is there an easy way to constrain the set of tables being loaded into SSMA, with the intention of speeding up the connection process?
Is there any handy tool that can make updating tables easier? Usually I got an Excel file with the original value in one column and new value in another column. Then I write a formula in Excel to create the 'update' statement. Is there any way to simplify the updating task?
I believe the approach in SQL server 2000 and 2005 would be different, so could we discuss them both? Thanks.
In addition, these updates usually request by "non-programmer" (which means they don't understand SQL, so it may not feasible to let them do query), is there any tool that can let them update the table directly without having DBAs do this task? Also, that tool needs to limit the privilege to only modify certain tables. And better has a way rollback the change.
Create a DTS package that will import a csv file, make the updates and then archives the file. The user can drop the file in a specific folder designated for the task or this can be done by an ops person. Schedule the DTS to run every hour, day, etc.
In case your users would insist that they keep using Excel, you've got several different possibilities of getting the data transferred to SQL Server. My preferred one would be to use DTS/SSIS, as mentioned by buckbova.
However, another method is by using OPENROWSET(), which makes it possible to query your Excel file as if it was a table. I wrote a small article about it here: http://blog.hoegaerden.be/2010/03/29/retrieving-data-from-excel/
Another approach that hasn't been mentioned yet (I'm not a big fan of letting regular users edit data directly in the DB), any possibility of creating a small custom application for them?
There you go, a couple more possible solutions :-)
Valentino.
I think the best approach is to expose a view on your data accessible to users who are allowed to do updates, and set up triggers on the view to perform the actual updates on the underlying data. Restrict change to only the columns they should be changing.
This technique can work on SQL Server 2000 and 2005.
I would add audit triggers on the underlying tables so you can always track changes.
You'll have complete control, and they can connect to it with Access or whatever and perform their maintenance.
You could create some accounts in SQL Server for these users and limit their access to only certain tables and columns along with onlu select / update / insert privileges. Then you could create an access database with linked tables to these.
We have a Visual C++ 6 app that stores data in an Access database using DAO. The database classes have been made using the ClassWizard, basing them on CDaoRecordset.
We need to move from Access to SQL Server because some clients have huge (1.5Gb+) databases that are really slow to run reports on (using Crystal Reports and a different app).
We're not too worried about performance on this VC++ app - it is downloading data from data recorders and putting it in the database.
I used the "Microsoft SQL Server Migration Assistant 2008 for Access" to migrate my database from Access into SQL Server - it then linked the tables in the original Access database. If I open the Access database then I can browse the data in the SQL Server database.
I've then tried to use that database with my app and keep running into problems.
I've changed all my recordsets to be dbOpenDynaset instead of dbOpenTable. I also changed the myrecordsetptr->open() calls to be myrecordsetptr->open(dbOpenDynaset, NULL, dbSeeChanges) so that I don't get an exception.
But... I'm now stuck getting an exception 3251 - 'Operation is not supported for this type of object' for one of my tables when I try to set the current index using myrecordsetptr->->SetCurrentIndex(_T("PrimaryKey"));
Are there any tricks to getting the linked tables to work without rewriting all the database access code?
[UPDATE 17/7/09 - thanks for the tips - I'll change all the Seek() references to FindFirst() / FindNext() and update this based on how I go]
Yes, but I don't think you can set/change the index of a linked table in the recordset, so you'll have to change the code accordingly.
For instance: If your code is expecting to set an index & call seek, you'll basically have to rewrite it use the Find method instead.
Why are you using SetCurrentIndex when you have moved your table from Access to SQL Server?
I mean - you are using Access only for linked table.
Also, as per this page - it says that SetCurrentIndex can be used for table type recordset.
In what context are you using the command SetCurrentIndex? If it's a subroutine that uses SEEK you can't use it with linked tables.
Also, it's Jet-only and isn't going to be of any value with a different back end.
I advise against the use of SEEK (even in Access with Jet tables) except for the most unusual situations where you need to jump around a single table thousands of times in a loop. In all other DAO circumstances, you should either be retrieving a limited number of records by using a restrictive WHERE clause (if you're using SEEK to get to a single record), or you should be using .FindFirst/FindNext. Yes, the latter two are proportionally much slower than SEEK, but they are much more portable, and also the absolute performance difference is only going to be relevant if you're doing thousands of them.
Also, if your SEEK is on an ordered field, you can optimize your navigation by checking whether the sought value is greater or lesser than the value of the current record, and choosing .FindPrevious or .FindNext, accordingly (because the DAO recordset Find operations work sequentially through the index).
We are in the process of a multi-year project where we're building a new system and a new database to eventually replace the old system and database. The users are using the new and old systems as we're changing them.
The problem we keep running into is when an object in one system is dependent on an object in the other system. We've been using views, but have run into a limitation with one of the technologies (Entity Framework) and are considering other options.
The other option we're looking at right now is replication. My boss isn't excited about the extra maintenance that would cause. So, what other options are there for getting dependent data into the database that needs it?
Update:
The technologies we're using are SQL Server 2008 and Entity Framework. Both databases are within the same sql server instance so linked servers shouldn't be necessary.
The limitation we're facing with Entity Framework is we can't seem to create the relationships between the table-based-entities and the view-based-entities. No relationship can exist in the database between a view and a table, as far as I know, so the edmx diagram can't infer it. And I cannot seem to create the relationship manually without getting errors. It thinks all columns in the view are keys.
If I leave it that way I get an error like this for each column in the view:
Association End key property [...] is
not mapped.
If I try to change the "Entity Key" property to false on the columns that are not the key I get this error:
All the key properties of the
EntitySet [...] must be mapped to all
the key properties [...] of table
viewName.
According to this forum post it sounds like a limitation of the Entity Framework.
Update #2
I should also mention the main limitation of the Entity Framework is that it only supports one database at a time. So we need the old data to appear to be in the new database for the Entity Framework to see it. We only need read access of the old system data in the new system.
You can use linked server queries to leave the data where it is, but connect to it from the other db.
Depending on how up-to-date the data in each db needs to be & if one data source can remain read-only you can:
Use the Database Copy Wizard to create an SSIS package
that you can run periodically as a SQL Agent Task
Use snapshot replication
Create a custom BCP in/out process
to get the data to the other db
Use transactional replication, which
can be near-realtime.
If data needs to be read-write in both database then you can use:
transactional replication with
update subscriptions
merge replication
As you go down the list the amount of work involved in maintaining the solution increases. Using linked server queries will work best if its the right fit for what you're trying to achieve.
EDIT: If they're the same server then as suggested by another user you should be able to access the table with servername.databasename.schema.tablename Looks like it's an entity-framework issues & not a db issue.
I don't know about EntityToSql but I know in LinqToSql you can connect to multiple databases/servers in one .dbml if you prefix the tables with:
ServerName.DatabaseName.SchemaName.TableName
MyServer.MyOldDatabase.dbo.Customers
I have been able to click on a table in the .dbml and copy and paste it into the .dbml of the alternate project prefix the name and set up the relationships and it works... like I said this was in LinqToSql, though have not tried it with EntityToSql. I would give it shot before you go though all the work of replication and such.
If Linq-to-Entities cannot cross DB's then Replication or something that emulates it is the only thing that will work.
For performance purposes you probably want either Merge replication or Transactional with queued (not immediate) updating.
Thanks for the responses. We're going to try adding triggers to the old database tables to insert/update/delete records in the new tables of the new database. This way we can continue to use Entity Framework and also do any data transformations we need.
Once the UI functions move over to the new system for a particular feature, we'll remove the table from the old database and add a view to the old database with the same name that points to the new database table for backwards compatibility.
One thing that I realized needs to happen before we can do this is we have to search all our code and sql for ##Identity and replace it with scope_identity() so the triggers don't mess up the Ids in the old system.