OK to use MDB instead of ADP?

[Joss]

Just been learning about upsizing MDB database to allow more efficient
multi-user access, so please excuse me if this is a bit basic.

I wish to create a 'backend' database (I'll call it 'dbserver.mdb') that
will be accessed by a handful of users (mostly reading, but some writing).
dbserver.mdb has its own tables and linked AS400 tables. Some of the
dbserver.mdb tables are populated by append and update queries that have
processed data from the AS400 tables. Originally, this was a shared MDB, but
this morning I upsized it to be an SQL database (first time I have done
this). So, the only difference is that the local dbserver tables are now in
an SQL db (linked). Clients will then access the SQL db (they don't need to
see the AS400 tables). I am using the original queries (append and update)
in the dbserver.mdb to update the linked SQL tables.

Question: Is this the right way to go about this for my purposes, or should
I convert the dbserver.mdb to an access project (.adp) If so, how do I
convert the AS400 tablelinks and update/append queries? It appears that the
way I have done it woks, but am I missing the point?

Sorry, if this seems complex, but it was difficult to put into words.

thanks,
Jo

 

[Sylvain Lafontaine]

If the speed is sufficient for your purpose, keep the MDB file.

If you have speed trouble with queries on joined tables, create views and
use them instead. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q209123/ to make
these views updateable, if necessary.

S. L.

 

[Joe Fallon]

Keep the mdb file.
It is fine for what you need to do.

 

[Joss]

Thanks for advice.

When would there be an advantage in converting to a project?

Jo

 

[Joe Fallon]

Ummm.
Almost never?

Even MS admits that linked tables in .mdbs are the way to go.

 

[Joss]

thanks

Ummm.
Almost never?

Even MS admits that linked tables in .mdbs are the way to go.