split database performance

[jptpjs via AccessMonster.com]

I have not split my database yet but plan on it.
Right now some complex forms take a long time to load with multiple users.
Will this help?

Pete

 

[Dean]

It may, there are many techniques available to improve form performance,
search the MSKB for Access Tips

 

[jptpjs via AccessMonster.com]

Thanks Dean

It may, there are many techniques available to improve form performance,
search the MSKB for Access Tips

 

[Albert D.Kallal]

In some cases, spitting does indeed help.

However, it also can hurt performance sometimes.

Read my article on splitting, and I talk about restoring performance also.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal/Articles/split/index.htm

 

[aaron.kempf]

you should use ACCESS DATA PROJECTS instead.

much better to use 4 procs on your db server than a celeron on the
desktop

 

[Tony Toews]

you should use ACCESS DATA PROJECTS instead.

much better to use 4 procs on your db server than a celeron on the
desktop

Rubbish.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

you should use ACCESS DATA PROJECTS instead.

much better to use 4 procs on your db server than a celeron on the
desktop

While some server apps have performance advanatages over desktops, Access
Data Projects are not included in that category. Performance has never been
their strength. Perhaps that's why they haven't been used to the same extent
as either ASP apps, or even ADPs, or MDBs.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
Microsoft Access
Free Access downloads:
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access

 

[aaron.kempf]

Arvin

I dont agree with your careful diagnosis.

MDB is crap technology. You guys are 10 years out of date; grow up and
start writing SQL Server views and sprocs instead of lame broken MDB
queries.

A) splitting
B) relinking
C) security
D) refreshing
E) real indexing
F) network performance
G) scalability

what does MDB have over ADP again?

you really think that MDB performance is better?

ARE YOU FRIGGIN DRUNK OR RETARDED OR BOTH?

 

[Tony Toews]

MDB is crap technology. You guys are 10 years out of date; grow up

ARE YOU FRIGGIN DRUNK OR RETARDED OR BOTH?

Aaron

While the points I've snipped are good starting points for a debate it
is quite obvious from your comments what you are. With that attitude
please go away.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

 

[aaron.kempf]

Tony

I'm sorry that you think that you're hot shit because you have a little
MVP badge.



MDB is crap technology. You guys are 10 years out of date; grow up and

start writing SQL Server views and sprocs instead of lame broken MDB
queries.


A) splitting
B) relinking
C) security
D) refreshing
E) real indexing
F) network performance
G) scalability


tell me why MDB is better than ADP again?

 

[Guest]

i have tried following albert's recipe....

i added a module1 to my FE with the following code

Option Compare Database

Public rstKeepOpen As DAO.Recordset 'to keep a table open and improve
throughput of BE

i added a table to the BE i named 'StayOpen' with one field in it called
'Constant' and one row with the value 'Always' input.

in my only form on this database, i added to the OnLoad event the following
code:

Private Sub Form_Load()
Set rstKeepOpen = CurrentDb.OpenRecordset("StayOpen") 'this will keep this
table open t/out session
End Sub

i guess i ought to mention that this is a 'testbed' database with one form,
two tables, not counting the 'StayOpen' table and only six records in the
table underlying the form whose performance is darn near glacial when
scrolling from one record to the next ..... i tried measuring the elapsed
time to go from one record to the next and it seems to mean a wait of btwn 5
to 8 secnds. currently my users have one database on the same shared network
drive where i have deposited the 'BE' of this highly simplified version and
get much much faster times to navigate throught the database. trying to sell
them on the increased stability and so forth is going to be non-difficult
unless i can get it moving quicker....at the back of my mind, given alberts's
assurances this method he suggested is the answer, is the possibility i
haven't put it together 'quite right', so i'm open to the feedback.