ODBC, OLE DB or Native for SQL2000?

[vanessa03]

My company has recently purchased SQL Server and is in the process of changing all it’s Crystal Reports 8.5 from Btrieve to SQL 2000. The old reports were using a native Btrieve driver. As I understand it, I have 3 choices to choose from for SQL: Native, OLE DB, and ODBC.

Would someone please guide me in choosing the best one?

Is one faster than the other?

Or more prone to errors?

 

[bdreed35]

I know there are users here that will have better info on this topic but I will give my $.02.

Since you will be using SQL Server 2000, stay away from the native SQL Server driver. It has not been updated since version 7, and if you ever upgrade to CR 9, it will not be available to you.

I have used both OLEDB and ODBC successfully. From reading posts here, it seems that most users are using ODBC to connect to SQL Server 2000 rather than OLEDB. I think I will defer to my more knowledgeable counterparts here for information regarding wich is better for you; OLEDB or ODBC.

~Brian

 

[FVTrainer]

Native is faster than ODBC; however, in CR 9 (realizing you have CR 8.5), the native driver is not available. A report using it will get converted to ODBC. That doesn't mean that you can't use the native driver; just be aware of the upgrade path. Also, some people on this forum have had more problems with the native driver than with ODBC.

OLE DB is the connectivity choice of the present and future, from Microsoft's perspective. I don't know if that should sway your choice, but keep it in mind. I'm not sure of the performance differential between ODBC and OLE DB.

Your decision might also depend on how you are going to deploy your reports. Are you using a 3rd-party viewer, CE/RAS, or a home-grown app that prints the report?

 

[vanessa03]

Thanks to all for your help. I would like to compile and distribute these reports. I have all ready downloaded the Report distribution expert for 8.5. Are there any problems in doing that with ODBC or OLE DB?