edit single record in formview

23 Jan 2006 4:03 PM

Phil

i want to return a selected record through output parameters in a stored proc
and bind them to a formview; is this possible and how should it be done?
currently i'm using a stored proced that essentially returns a set of data
containing only one row for the selected record. it is my understanding that
this is ineffecient as compared to using output parameters for single record
selection.

thanks.

24 Jan 2006 12:46 PM

Christopher Reed

No, it's probably more efficient to return back a single record than having
to keep track of multiple output parameters from a stored procedure.

--
Christopher A. Reed
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

Show quoteHide quote

"Phil" <P***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A1D11741-0636-4F1A-B617-2805D07B7D37@microsoft.com...
>i want to return a selected record through output parameters in a stored
>proc
> and bind them to a formview; is this possible and how should it be done?
> currently i'm using a stored proced that essentially returns a set of data
> containing only one row for the selected record. it is my understanding
> that
> this is ineffecient as compared to using output parameters for single
> record
> selection.
>
> thanks.

24 Jan 2006 2:01 PM

Phil

Sorry, I was using "effeciency" to describe the resources used on the server
and/or client. Using output parameters to return a single record has be the
norm since vb 6.0/ASP 1.0/SQL Server 6.5 when ADO was first introduced
(perhaps before, but that is when I became aware of it). It means less
resources are used by the server building a "record/data set object" to pass
back to the client, and less resources are used on the client maintaining
this object. Using output parameters is always faster and uses less overhead
than executing and return a full result set.

For the developer, imho, coding to output parameters is not much more work
than coding to a result set object (ie dataset/datareader), but perhaps
that's just been the case in my scenarios and yours have been different.

At any rate, thanks for the reply. Perhaps this is a question that can be
reposted in the correct forum if it needs further investigation, as I'm still
needing an answer to my databinding question.

Thanks,
Phil

Show quoteHide quote

"Christopher Reed" wrote:

> No, it's probably more efficient to return back a single record than having
> to keep track of multiple output parameters from a stored procedure.
> --
> Christopher A. Reed
> "The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."
>
> "Phil" <P***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A1D11741-0636-4F1A-B617-2805D07B7D37@microsoft.com...
> >i want to return a selected record through output parameters in a stored
> >proc
> > and bind them to a formview; is this possible and how should it be done?
> > currently i'm using a stored proced that essentially returns a set of data
> > containing only one row for the selected record. it is my understanding
> > that
> > this is ineffecient as compared to using output parameters for single
> > record
> > selection.
> >
> > thanks.
>
>
>

24 Jan 2006 10:41 PM

Christopher Reed

Well, regardless of the past, the problem with output parameters is that you
will need to do more programming, not less, when using .NET. When the new
design of ASP.NET 2.0, a FormView dovetails perfectly with SqlDataSource.
Thus, the best way to use a SqlDataSource object is to create a
SelectCommand that produces a "recordset" from your database. Even better,
this can all be done in the ASPX page without any code to start.

To use multiple output parameters (say 3 or more) will require a lot more
coding on both the .NET side as well as within your stored procedure.
Additionally, your stored procedure, if running a query, is already
returning the data back as a cursor, unless you do more programming in the
stored procedure to prevent.

Look at some of the QuickStart Tutorials available at www.asp.net for
FormView. This should help.

--
Christopher A. Reed
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

Show quoteHide quote

"Phil" <P***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A009AA1B-82B9-4183-A927-CB3F2A07B8BB@microsoft.com...
> Sorry, I was using "effeciency" to describe the resources used on the
> server
> and/or client. Using output parameters to return a single record has be
> the
> norm since vb 6.0/ASP 1.0/SQL Server 6.5 when ADO was first introduced
> (perhaps before, but that is when I became aware of it). It means less
> resources are used by the server building a "record/data set object" to
> pass
> back to the client, and less resources are used on the client maintaining
> this object. Using output parameters is always faster and uses less
> overhead
> than executing and return a full result set.
>
> For the developer, imho, coding to output parameters is not much more work
> than coding to a result set object (ie dataset/datareader), but perhaps
> that's just been the case in my scenarios and yours have been different.
>
> At any rate, thanks for the reply. Perhaps this is a question that can be
> reposted in the correct forum if it needs further investigation, as I'm
> still
> needing an answer to my databinding question.
>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
> "Christopher Reed" wrote:
>
>> No, it's probably more efficient to return back a single record than
>> having
>> to keep track of multiple output parameters from a stored procedure.
>> --
>> Christopher A. Reed
>> "The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."
>>
>> "Phil" <P***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:A1D11741-0636-4F1A-B617-2805D07B7D37@microsoft.com...
>> >i want to return a selected record through output parameters in a stored
>> >proc
>> > and bind them to a formview; is this possible and how should it be
>> > done?
>> > currently i'm using a stored proced that essentially returns a set of
>> > data
>> > containing only one row for the selected record. it is my
>> > understanding
>> > that
>> > this is ineffecient as compared to using output parameters for single
>> > record
>> > selection.
>> >
>> > thanks.
>>
>>
>>