So we tried this fix, changing the MaxBufferSize from 0 to and his performance seems better. Very strange Microsoft, very strange.
To continue this discussion, please ask a new question. Laplink Software, Inc. Neil Laplink. Get answers from your peers along with millions of IT pros who visit Spiceworks.
Spread the knowledge! About the Author: Juan Soto. His passion for Access has led him to helping a wide range of businesses in helping them establish a secure, stable and efficient environment with SQL Server. If you wish to have Juan speak at your next group meeting you can contact him here. Jonas June 4, at pm. This worked like a charm for Access !! Thank you so much! Juan Soto June 4, at pm. Afton GIlle September 15, at pm. Sean February 29, at am. Worked a treat! In that case if you are running on a LAN I would expect the application response to be slow in and slower in vs a local install of either version.
There is no apparent performance difference between an 'all in one db' and a split db. To my knowledge there is no way to incorporate my UNC fix into an 'all in one' db as it applies to linked tables only.
Until I added the UNC path name to the linked table was toast. I dont' recall a performance difference with between XP and Win 7. However, I am not reading or writing large amounts of data from a few tables.
Where as the application forms and reports frequently read a small record set of data from many related tables.
As a result i have a lot of tables open in bound forms or query. Again in performance was litterally seconds to load forms, select data using combo selection boxes to populate forms or reports. I could not find or afford an application that would integrate all facets of my company so I designed it myself.
The application is not as data intensive with regard to table size. However, the application is highly interactive for all of my staff. Over a period of 6mos. No change, no improvement. Prior to that we deleted all the tables from the front end, compiled and relinked to erase the metadata. Nothing worked until we added the UNC. Now we run both side by side and is still slower but usable. I do not propose the UNC is a cure all but it was the only thing that put life in my migration plan.
I am gratefull for their support. Without it I would have been toast. I can tell you that the problem is not in the underlying data base design. I did a lot of research on how Access is designed to work.
Specifically how to optimize table design, relationships, proper index design, query design optimization. I never violated the rules. The db is normalized to take advantage of all the speed that was designed in and i have benefited from it since. Again I hope future versions of Access will regain the speed of If there is an overall performance drop using , then I would not be surprised.
I guess the question is how much? I never seen a case when benefits from a persistent connection, but then on the same machine DID not. In other words if a persistent connection helped , then such a persistant connection would ALSO help And we are talking about the exact same computer here.
So I am not willing accept at this point int time that one version will need or benefit from a persistent connection and the other version will not again: exact same computer and hardware. I guess the question is how much experience and how long have you been using computers in our industry?
In the last 20 years, I cannot think of ANY version of any particular software program that did not require: more disk space, more CPU Processing, and more ram.
So if you're looking at the last 20 to 30 years, if not the last 50 years of the whole combined computer industry we belong to? Then such "hope" of an experience on your part would be very different than everybody else for the most part. However at the end of the day, I appreciate you sharing the knowledge that changing to a UNC path name solved some, but not all of your performance issues.
It's not clear if you did the UNC re-link on the one machine, or did the UNC re-linking before you distributed the front into each machine. So perhaps some issues of how this compiled accDE is created and distributed and do the re-linking before or after you distribute could come into play here.
Throughout testing we applied all fixes equally to both versions. This included maintaining a persistent connection, relinking from each OS work station, testing under both runtimes and the license versions.
The migration was directly from to via an import into a blank accdb and a mdb. Yes, I am aware that each sucessive application requires more system resources.
However, as a business man with 30yrs experience I am not willing to give ground on something as fundamentally simple as reading and writing to a data souce in the course of day to day operations. Every individual in my company spends considerable time working with our integrated application. The time and cost savings affored us with Access is a significant asset to my company and I'm not willing to give that up. Particularly when an individual spends hrs a day working interactively entering line item data for sales and quotations.
Access has a huge installed base world wide. The amount of time lost is incomprehensible! So yes I expect a permanent solution. We were essentially in a 'try this' mode for some time.
When the UNC path name was suggested I modified the relink code and made it tolerable. Some forms and reports are a few seconds slower but I can live with it. Again MS support stuck with me until we found a fix. I believe there is agreement that is overall slower than In my case we are moving forward with You have not seen this issue and have not had to deal with the piece of crap Microsoft is putting out there as a database. It is pathetically SLOW! I have tried all to these changes and have NOT seen an improvement yet.
Of course new software with new features is going to require more horsepower, but this is utterly ridiculous! No amount of horsepower will fix this issue. It is some freaking bug in their system that basically locks up the computer until something times out. The problem is no one at Microsoft cares enough to fix it!
Dev Center. Explore Why Office? Android ASP. Ask a question. Quick access. Search related threads. Remove From My Forums.
Asked by:. Archived Forums. Access for Developers. Sign in to vote. Cheers, Jan. Thursday, August 18, AM. Jsoar wrote: I don't know what else I can do to resolve this issue.
Jan, I don't have any solution for this problem. Also, note of the A SP1 problems as well, avoid installing it if it is possible. Hi Jan, How about the problem on your side? Wednesday, August 24, AM. Would this work for you? Darrell Darrell H Burns.
Okay, an update Access 7 seconds to Iterate 80, records in a linked table via ADO Access 45 seconds for the same 80, records, same VBA code as above The only viable solution, barring some "breakthrough" or MS partch, is that the client has begun snapping up Office Pro copies on Ebay and will be abandoing MSA going forward.
Thursday, August 25, PM. Just my 2 cents. Darrell H Burns. Friday, August 26, AM. Saturday, August 27, AM. Hi Jan, Do you still need any assistant? Wednesday, August 31, AM. Sunday, September 4, PM. Hi Syswizard, I am still kinda new - What is the real db engine? Chris Ward. Pardon me for butting in. The "real database engine" is SQL Server. The proc will return a recordset or a scalar value. Here's an example. It would take seconds to return a list of vendors that met the criteria:.
Test parameters SQL Server Connection string Connection '3. Open a connection to the SQL server
0コメント