Walter,

>Rubbish, SQL servers are not capable of doing complex statistical analysis. If I want to calculate trendlines, scatter diagrams etc, IOW calculations with a lot of datapoints I need all data in an application that is capable of doing the statistical calculations. It requires the whole dataset to be downloaded to the client. The server side is responsible of getting me the data, the client side is responsible of processing that data into a form that has meaning to the users.

I typically see the client-side as presenting the data to the users. The server-side can do more than just get the data from the database. The data can be processed server-side as well, prior to sending it to the client. This can be done with server-side code (not the SQL Server database itself). I see nothing wrong with this architectural view. If you disagree, then fine ... we disagree. Doesn't mean I'm wrong. Doesn't mean you are either.

>Even then, what are you trying to say here? That I should generate the graphs or do the statistical analysis on the server?

No, you should not generate graphs server-side, but you can do the statistical analysis server-side and send the resulting data from that to the client to be presented to the user.

>Client server does not mean that the client is on a different machine than the server. It is about different layers (in which the layers can be on the same machine).

Yes, I'm fully aware that the layers *can* be on the same machine, but in a typical client-server application, the user is accessing data that is *not* on the same machine.

>In anyway, you're not providing a solution for this specific case. A SQL server (yes the machine itself) should do concenrtate on providing data. Analysis of data should take place elsewhere or else your server performance is severely affected. In a traditional C/S setup that means the client machine.

I disagree. Analysis of data can take place server-side without affecting the SQL Server's performance ... "server-side" does *not* necessarily mean you only have one machine there.

>Look downloading 50,000 row of 500 bytes a row, = 25 megs and takes about 3 seconds to download on a 100 mps network. Not a big deal... Why force the statiscal processing on a central server
while you have so much processing power on your workstation ??

Not everyone has powerful workstations.

>Bonnie, I appreciate that you have learned to solve problems in a certain way, but as I see it you have learned to work with limitations that are constrained by the tools at hand and totally forgot why you are solving problems the way you do. This is BAD. You should be open to find the ideal solution, and *if* constrained by the tool, hardware or infrastructure, you should know that.

I'll say it again Walter ... the architecture that I have described is not a limitation of the tool, it is the generally accepted definition of client/server types of applications. If you disagree with that, then fine, you have the right to not agree with everything that I say ... we can agree to disagree.

> Only that insight makes you capable of find the best solution in any given case.Sometimes it might be better to do server processing, sometimes it pays off to download the data to the client.

Well, I can sort of agree with you on this point ... I'm fond of saying "it depends" anyway. <g> In the case of Jojo's original question though, it seemed like what I was proposing was the correct methodology.


~~Bonnie