Split Database

[Guest]

Hi,

I split my database in the share drive. Why is the front end of the
database so big compared to the backend of the database? If I am trying to
ask every users to get a copy of the front end of that database into their pc
it's a lot of memory if they copy and past in the desktop screen. My front
end is almost 74,000 kb and that is a big file. Is that normal? My back end
is only 940 kb very small. Why is that I expect the reverse where the back
end is 74,000 kb and the front end 940 kb.
Thanks, K.

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

I would agree that your sizes sound backwards.

Are you sure you split it properly? Did you compact it after splitting?

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP

(no private e-mails, please)


"E-mail report using Lotus Notes rather t"

 

[John Vinson]

Hi,

I split my database in the share drive. Why is the front end of the
database so big compared to the backend of the database? If I am trying to
ask every users to get a copy of the front end of that database into their pc
it's a lot of memory if they copy and past in the desktop screen. My front
end is almost 74,000 kb and that is a big file. Is that normal? My back end
is only 940 kb very small. Why is that I expect the reverse where the back
end is 74,000 kb and the front end 940 kb.
Thanks, K.

Do you have any images in the frontend, say as background images on
Forms, logos on Reports, or the like? If so, Access is VERY prone to
bloat wherever images are concerned.

John W. Vinson[MVP]

 

[Guest]

Access is also prone to bloat when you make changes to forms, reports and
modules. Make sure you compact the front end after splitting, and after every
change to the above-mentioned objects. You could see up to a 10 to 1
compression after compacting!

 

[dbahooker]

technically; when these buffoons reccomend splitting into front-end /
back-end; they really mean 'move most of the tables ot the backend but
keep some on the front end'

you could easily have placed some tables on the frontend instead of the
backend; and I dont blame you-- the path that these fools reccomend is
complex and undocumented.. and unreliable.. and a pain to manage.

if you just kept all your data in an Access Data Project; you might
have to rewrite some queries-- but it's a much much better long term
solution.

I think that any use of MDB in the year 2006 is ridiculous; and that
you would be best off moving to a solution TODAY that would give you
TINY frontends and all your data in one place.. no horsing around.

that way you don't have to deal with syncing queries and tables in
between the frontend and the backend; it's just a much more sound
architecture.

-Aaron
Sr SQL DBA