Access database over a network

[Luke Bellamy]

I have an Access 2K2 front end that accesses file across a network.
Can anyone please confirm for me that referencing these files via a
drive mapping is faster than using a UNC?
Also I believe Access checks the security on each directory when
retrieving data so the smaller the directory structure the better the
performance. Is this correct?

Thankyou

 

[Paul Overway]

--
Paul Overway
Logico Solutions, LLC
www.logico-solutions.com

 

[Paul Overway]

Drive mappings aren't any faster than UNC from my observations, but UNC is
more convenient. A shorter path is faster. Keeping a connection open on
the file makes a huge difference (i.e., open a recordset on your 1st table
immediately after it is relinked).

 

[Tom Wickerath]

I agree with Paul's observations. Tony Toews has several pages worth visiting, including one
that outlines how to keep a persistent connection:

Keep a persistent connection open
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performanceldblocking.htm

Microsoft Access Performance FAQ
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performancefaq.htm


Tom
___________________________________________


Drive mappings aren't any faster than UNC from my observations, but UNC is
more convenient. A shorter path is faster. Keeping a connection open on
the file makes a huge difference (i.e., open a recordset on your 1st table
immediately after it is relinked).

--
Paul Overway
Logico Solutions, LLC
www.logico-solutions.com

___________________________________________


I have an Access 2K2 front end that accesses file across a network.
Can anyone please confirm for me that referencing these files via a
drive mapping is faster than using a UNC?
Also I believe Access checks the security on each directory when
retrieving data so the smaller the directory structure the better the
performance. Is this correct?

Thankyou

 

[Luke Bellamy]

Thanks guys... I have previously applied all Tony's performance tips so
I'm on track.
My line of thinking was with a drive mapping instead of a UNC access
would not have to "resolve" the name/location on the network and thus
a drive mapping would be faster. Even if this is so it sounds like the
time to do this is insignificant.

Thanks again