Bang Efficiency

[comart]

Is the use of the bang when referencing a field name efficient?

strOldFirst = rstEmployees!fname

[Cakkie]

It is as efficient as

strOldFirst = rstEmployees("fname")
strOldFirst = rstEmployees.fields!fname
strOldFirst = rstEmployees.fields("fname")
strOldFirst = rstEmployees.fields("fname").value



cause eventually, when compiled, it all looks the same
however, using the index number instead of the name will be faster, but less flexible when the recordset changes (like fields swapping place and stuff)

strOldFirst = rstEmployees.Fields(0)




Tom Cannaerts
[email protected]

Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idot-proof programs, and the universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning -- Rich Cook

[comart]

What does the bang actually do? Why use it?

[Iouri]

rs.(0)
rs("Customer_Code")
rs.fields(0)
rs.fields("Customer_Code")
rs.fields.item(0)
rs.fields.item("Customer_Code")

In VBScript, the versions that use field indexes instead of names are faster and the extended syntax-rs.fields.
item(0)-is fastest. The reason: Although VBScript, like VB, supports default properties, VBScript doesn't
have to search manually for the default property of the object being referenced.


'undocumented feature
with rs
.collect(fld1)
.collect(fld2)
end with


works 30% faster then rs!Field

Iouri Boutchkine
[email protected]

[Cakkie]

don't know actually, I only know it can be used for reffering fields in a collection, don't even know if it can be used for all collections, or if it's only for recordsets

Tom Cannaerts
[email protected]

Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idot-proof programs, and the universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning -- Rich Cook