Splitting a DB

[Larry Salvucci]

This is my first time splitting a database. I ran the wizard in A2003 and it
split my DB perfectly. But now I no longer have any security on the BE. Why
did that happen? My DB was secure before I did the split. Also, the
performance is MUCH slower now. Is there any way to speed that up at all?

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

The performance hit should be minor when running on a local machine, and it
should actually improve with a backend only on the server. You can manually
split the database to keep everything secure, and it actually is so easy,
that I never use the wizard anyway.

Make 2 copies of the database. On the copy to be a backend, delete
everything except the tables. On the front-end, delete all the tables. Move
them both to the server and link them (File >>> Get External Data >>> Link,
then choose the database and select all the tables and say OK) Then move a
copy of the front-end to each computer.

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

I disagree.

Moving to a split front-end / back-end system is just a symptom that
you've begun to exceed boundaries of MS Access. In other words- it's
time to upsize!

If your database is too slow- move to a proper database backend- like
SQL Server for example- because only SQL Server helps you to index
your tables properly.

Split performance does suck, because it's basically just a band aid.

-Aaron

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

What? How does it feel to be someone who has no idea whatsoever what he's
talking about? It is only a very few database application systems which
allow a monolithic structure. Access is one of those. EVERY database worth
more than a nickel is split, including every SQL-Server database. Unless you
are working directly in table or stored procs, there is no other possible
method of working in SQL-Server. Even a thin-client (browser or Terminal
Server) uses a separate (split) front-end.

In the future, it might be better for you to actual learn something before
trying to pontificate on something that you don't understand.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access
http://www.accessmvp.com


message
I disagree.

Moving to a split front-end / back-end system is just a symptom that
you've begun to exceed boundaries of MS Access. In other words- it's
time to upsize!

If your database is too slow- move to a proper database backend- like
SQL Server for example- because only SQL Server helps you to index
your tables properly.

Split performance does suck, because it's basically just a band aid.

-Aaron

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

Dude I don't split anything.

I keep my data, and my queries in SQL Server.
and my Forms, Reports, Macros, Modules-- in an ADP.

What's so hard to understand?

Keep your queries / tables where they belong-- SQL Server

and your life would be a lot easier.

You shouldn't have to worry about:
Linked Table Manager
Compact and Repair
Frontend / backend

just simple MS Access forms and reports against an enterprise level db
engine = 'Access Data Projects'.

SQL Server is the worlds most popular database _FOR_A_REASON_.

 

[George Hepworth]

"Split" is such an interesting, and potentially ambiguous, word. It can mean
anything from a city in Croatia to a dairy-and-fruit based confection to a
particular type of personality disorder.

One thing though, that is constant across most of those meanings, is that
the thing which is split exists in physcally separated, but logically
paired, components. The banana split, for example, consists of a single
banana cut into two slices, with ice cream and toppings laid down between
the two halfs of the split. A split personality is, somewhat ironically,
just the opposite: a physically united physical presence inhabited by two
(or more) logically divergent personalities. (I might have used a more
appropriate word than logical there, but I can't think of one at the
moment.)

The long and the short of it is, however, that one might be tempted to ask
whether "keeping [your] data, and [your] queries in SQL Server. and [your]
Forms, Reports, Macros, Modules --in an ADP" doesn't fit nicely into the
basic definition of a "split". What do you think?







message
Dude I don't split anything.

I keep my data, and my queries in SQL Server.
and my Forms, Reports, Macros, Modules-- in an ADP.

What's so hard to understand?

Keep your queries / tables where they belong-- SQL Server

and your life would be a lot easier.

You shouldn't have to worry about:
Linked Table Manager
Compact and Repair
Frontend / backend

just simple MS Access forms and reports against an enterprise level db
engine = 'Access Data Projects'.

SQL Server is the worlds most popular database _FOR_A_REASON_.

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

message

Dude I don't split anything.

I keep my data, and my queries in SQL Server.
and my Forms, Reports, Macros, Modules-- in an ADP.

What's so hard to understand?

Gee, you tell us. You're the one not understanding. By having your program
in an ADP and your data on a SQL-Server, IT IS SPLIT.

 

[a a r o n _ k e m p f]

I'm not having a hard time explaining or understanding anything.

When I use ADP, it DECREASES COMPLEXITY.

Having 3 tiers of Jet databases is-- by definition-- more complex than
100 SQL databases linked together.
Because SQL Server was designed- from the ground up- to support
multiple databases and users.

Meanwhile, you guys are still stuck using an obsolete beginners
database-- just because MVP Retards around here thinks that it's
trendy.

SQL Server slaughtered Jet, it does every day.
If your professional database developer doesn't know how to spell SQL,
go on CraigsList and find someone that does.

Only a newbie LOSER would use Jet for anything.

-Aaron