SQL Equivalent of Access OLE Object field

Hi

What is the SQL Equivalent of Access OLE Object field
Murray BrownMicrosoft Cloud Azure/Excel Solution DeveloperAsked:
Who is Participating?

[Webinar] Streamline your web hosting managementRegister Today

x
 
BitsqueezerConnect With a Mentor Commented:
Hi,

there is no real equivalent, but to save binary objects the recommended choice is "varbinary(MAX)".

Normally it's better not to save big binary objects into a table. It's better to use a normal file repository like a file server and then only save a link to this file into the database.

Cheers,

Christian
0
 
Racim BOUDJAKDJIConnect With a Mentor Database Architect - Dba - Data ScientistCommented:
Normally it's better not to save big binary objects into a table. It's better to use a normal file repository like a file server and then only save a link to this file into the database.
You are talking about BLOB which I agree is a poor idea but why bother ? Simply use FILESTREAM.
0
 
Racim BOUDJAKDJIDatabase Architect - Dba - Data ScientistCommented:
0
The new generation of project management tools

With monday.com’s project management tool, you can see what everyone on your team is working in a single glance. Its intuitive dashboards are customizable, so you can create systems that work for you.

 
Anthony PerkinsCommented:
Actually, I think the author should back up entirely and see why they were using the MS Access OLE Object.  I suspect there is a far more elegant way to solve this problem then just saving all that binary data.  If they are going to do that they may as well use Xml. :)
0
 
Anthony PerkinsCommented:
That last comment regarding Xml was said half in jest for Racim's benefit. I know he will get a kick out of it.
0
 
Murray BrownMicrosoft Cloud Azure/Excel Solution DeveloperAuthor Commented:
Thanks very much
0
 
Racim BOUDJAKDJIDatabase Architect - Dba - Data ScientistCommented:
That last comment regarding Xml was said half in jest for Racim's benefit. I know he will get a kick out of it.
:)

Though I appreciate the intent, I'd have to say that benefit and xml have quasi mutually exclusive meanings,  as far as I am concerned.

I invite you to read the following for more info...
http://workflow.healthbase.info/monographs/XML_myths_Browne.pdf
0
 
Anthony PerkinsCommented:
Racim,

You know we will never agree on the merits (or lack) of Xml.  Certainly around that time when that article was written (2003) there was a lot of hype regarding Xml (as there is now IMHO with JSON), but if used wisely Xml has its place in the proverbial toolbox.
0
 
Racim BOUDJAKDJIDatabase Architect - Dba - Data ScientistCommented:
You know we will never agree on the merits (or lack) of Xml.
Yes I know but I hope to change your mind someday :).  No big deal.

The article underlines fundamental timeless flaws about the hierarchic structure of XML and hoping to get something out of this.   I guess I came to the conclusion that living without it is better that living with it.  

I am curious on what cases you consider to use XML wisely ?  Since I don't use XML at all I may give it a shot and see.

Regards..
0
 
Anthony PerkinsCommented:
In the past (prior to SQL Server 2008) I have used it very effectively to pass a dynamic list of parameters.  The case where you you be passing one ID or several hundred.  Another case is when you had a large list of optional parameters to be passed to a Stored Procedure for say searching purposes.  These two use cases can now be replaced with Table Valued Parameters.

Another case, that is still valid is to use Xml in a Stored Procedure to create a comma delimited list.
0
 
BitsqueezerCommented:
Hi acperkins,

little hint: This was also possible with SQL Server 2005 (and maybe before): Instead of using a table valued parameter simply create a temp table which is available in all called stored procedures without the need of a parameter. The lifetime of a temp table ends after the SP which created it. And it's an often heard myth that table valued parameters are all stored in memory - in fact SQL Server also creates temp tables for them so you have no disadvantage of creating a temp table in case of forwarding a parameter list.

Cheers,

Christian
0
 
Anthony PerkinsCommented:
This was also possible with SQL Server 2005 (and maybe before): Instead of using a table valued parameter simply create a temp table which is available in all called stored procedures without the need of a parameter.
Absolutely.  I should have clarified when calling Stored Procedures from .NET and using SQL Server 2005 the only way was to use Xml (or God forbid) a delimited string.
0
All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.