3 ms·
"87 rows in 3 seconds" - performance could be a problem. Last time i used Excel I thought that you can already run sql on the data and if you need to really do
by sfphotoarts 17y ago
"87 rows in 3 seconds" - performance could be a problem. Last time i used Excel I thought that you can already run sql on the data and if you need to really do that sort of thing you'd just export to sqlserver and do it there. I think this idea is the wrong market. Those that know sql will use sql against sqlserver as I just described, and those that don't spend countless hours in excel trying to use formulas.
sorry, I prefer to like start up ideas but this one just doesn't seem to have any legs in my mind.
- samh 17y agoThanks for your honest opinion sfphotoarts. I would say in defense that: - The return time doesn't scale with the number of rows returned. I have just run a query that queried 6 tables, invoked numerous string concatenations, included 2 MOD functions, 2 RAND functions and returned 22,000 rows, it took 11 seconds. This is not up to database performance of course. - There is a static overhead to running a query, and that's much greater in QueryCell than in a database directly. - QueryCell is not meant to replace databases, just make life easier for people working in Excel. It was pretty much the 'countless hours trying to use formulas' that made me think about QueryCell. Cheers