using sqldatasource vs connecting to database in code, asp.net

Is there much difference using a sqldatasource on the .aspx page vs connecting via code?
like
    <asp:SqlDataSource ID="SqlDataSource1" runat="server"
        ConnectionString="<%$ ConnectionStrings:ConnectionString1 %>"
        SelectCommand="sp_INSERT_to_HistoryTable" SelectCommandType="StoredProcedure">
        <SelectParameters>
            <asp:ControlParameter ControlID="Comment1A_Set1_10" Name="Acct"
                PropertyName="Text" Type="String" />
            <asp:ControlParameter ControlID="Comment1A_Set2_10" Name="SerNum"
                PropertyName="Text" Type="String" />
            <asp:Parameter Name="Str1" Type="String" />
        </SelectParameters>
    </asp:SqlDataSource>
vs in code, something like this:
        Dim SeaConn As New System.Data.OleDb.OleDbConnection("Provider=SQLOLEDB.1;xxxxxxxxxxx")
        Dim cmd As New OleDbCommand(strSQL)
        SeaConn .Open()
        cmd.Connection = SeaConn
        cmd.ExecuteNonQuery()
        SeaConn .Close()
avoorheisAsked:
Who is Participating?

Improve company productivity with a Business Account.Sign Up

x
 
Chris-ChambersConnect With a Mentor Commented:
Hi,

I've only tried using an sqldatasource once, and I found that the connection took between 10 an 15 times longer to connect (or rather the page took that much longer to render) than using code.

(This was tried on a production server in live conditions.)

Of course there could have been other factors at work but I have never bothered trying again, the code version works well enough for me with no performance worries to keep me up at night.

Hope this helps,

Chris.

0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.