Access and processor usage

[WannaKatana]

I am just wondering why, with nothing else running and executing an
update query against a very large table, does Access seem to be
causing less than 10% processor usage. Then it says "There is not
enough disk space or memory to undo the changes". I have 2 gb RAM,
Core 2 duo e6300 processor and plenty of disk space. Why doesn't
Access peg the CPU?

Joel

 

['69 Camaro]

Hi, Joel.

Please don't multipost. Your question has already been answered elsewhere,
so anyone answering this post would likely duplicate those answers and get
upset with you for wasting his valuable time. Please see the following Web
page for advice on how to post in the newsgroups without ruffling anyone's
feathers:

http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blogs: www.DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com, www.DatabaseTips.BlogSpot.com
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
info.

 

[Todos Menos [MSFT]]

Access doesn't use resources efficiently

move to SQL Server, kid

-Todos

 

[WannaKatana]

No choice in this particular case I'm afraid. I don't understand what
would prevent Access from using the processor as much as possible. I
think that's a different thing than using resources. If not, enlighten
me

Joel

 

[WannaKatana]

Hi, Joel.

Please don't multipost. Your question has already been answered elsewhere,
so anyone answering this post would likely duplicate those answers and get
upset with you for wasting his valuable time. Please see the following Web
page for advice on how to post in the newsgroups without ruffling anyone's
feathers:

http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm

HTH.
Gunny

Seehttp://www.QBuilt.comfor all your database needs.
Seehttp://www.Access.QBuilt.comfor Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blogs:www.DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com,www.D....QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.htmlfor contact
info.







- Show quoted text -

You're correct, I posted here after noticing that this group gets more
traffic.

I do wonder what's the point of having more than one group for the
same subject. There's two groups but I can only post in one? What if
the person with the best answer only goes to one?

Just some rhetorical questions...

 

[Dirk Goldgar]

In

I am just wondering why, with nothing else running and executing an
update query against a very large table, does Access seem to be
causing less than 10% processor usage. Then it says "There is not
enough disk space or memory to undo the changes". I have 2 gb RAM,
Core 2 duo e6300 processor and plenty of disk space. Why doesn't
Access peg the CPU?

How would increasing the CPU usage help, if the operation is not
CPU-bound?

As for your specific issue, I believe I've just been struggling with it
in a different context. I suspect it's the equivalent of Jet error
3035, "System resource exceeded", which I encountered while executing a
large delete query within a transaction. I believe that the message
about "not enough disk space or memory" is over-simplified, but rather
there is some resource, possibly the Jet work file, that has reached its
limit in maintaining the ability to roll back such a large number of
changes within the transaction. So it's not really disk space or memory
as such that is the limiting factor, but some other -- non-CPU --
resource.

 

['69 Camaro]

Hi, Joel.

I do wonder what's the point of having more than one group for the
same subject.

The newsgroup you're posting in now is sponsored by Microsoft, as are all
the others that start with the name Microsoft.Public.Access.*. On the other
hand, Comp.Databases.MS-Access was created by Access enthusiasts who created
a charter to govern the group, and their charter is listed on the Web page I
gave you in my earlier post. Having a newsgroup dedicated to Access but
outside of Microsoft's reach is probably not a bad thing, even though it may
seem redundant.

There's two groups but I can only post in one?

You can post to more than one, but that requires cross-posting: listing all
of the newsgroups you want your post to go to when you press <SEND>. That
way, anyone replying to one of your messages will have his reply show up in
all of the newsgroups you cross-posted to, not just the one thread he
replied to. If a reader sees that someone has already answered the
question, unless he's got something to add or has an even better answer,
he'll pass on it and go to the next question. However, if you multipost,
people will reply to one of your posts and other people may reply to the
other, duplicating efforts and possibly depriving other questioners from
getting their questions answered, because we all only have a finite amount
of time to donate to helping those who request help in the newsgroups.
There's no reason to squander these limited resources by needlessly
duplicating efforts.

Please note that it is seldom necessary to post in more than one or even two
newsgroups, since most of the same experts read and reply to multiple
newsgroups.

What if
the person with the best answer only goes to one?

Not a problem. Allen Browne goes to both newsgroups you multiposted to, as
well as most of the others. If he wants to add something, he will, but only
to one of your questions you posted -- the first one he finds. The second
one is redundant.

Just some rhetorical questions...

They're good questions that deserved answers.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blogs: www.DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com, www.DatabaseTips.BlogSpot.com
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
info.

 

[Guest]

Ignore aaron the unknown.

Sometimes it's not the cpu. If you are making changes to a large table, it
could just be the reading and writing to the hard drive that's the
bottleneck. Also the disk space could be the 2GB limit of an Access mdb file.
To save all the changes to where you could say No at the last second could
put you past this 2GB limit.

 

[Todos Menos [MSFT]]

Access Data Projects use my processor effectively

seriously


MDB is for lamers and retards; ADP works like a charm

these newbie script kids around here; they think that we're still in
the 90s

from what i've seen and tested-- ADO beats DAO in performance,
scalablility
anyone still using DAO is fat and lazy and retarded

-Aaron

 

[Todos Menos [MSFT]]

re:

Ignore aaron the unknown.
--
Jerry Whittle, Microsoft Access MVP
Light. Strong. Cheap. Pick two. Keith Bontrager - Bicycle Builder.


JERRY
IF YOU WEREN'T A FAT LAZY RETARD THEN MAYBE YOU COULD DELIVER ALL
THREE
LIGHT. STRONG. CHEAP = ADP

 

[Todos Menos [MSFT]]

in other words-- Dirk is reccomending to use Access Data Projects

MDB is MORE DIFFICULT TO USE and is not stable or reliable.
ADP works like a charm

 

[Todos Menos [MSFT]]

a) ADP doesn't have a 2gb limit
b) freeware SQL Server 2005 Express has a 4gb limit
c) even with this limit; it is EASY to use multiple databases on the
same server-- with MDB this would require linked tables. With ADP
_ALL_ data is easily referenced from another database-- no overhead
required
d) ADP utilizes the latest improvements in memory and harddrive and
processor. MDB does none of the 3.