Access Database capacity ... need help

" wrote:

if you didn't have to sync queries and tables woudln't your job be
easier?

What do you mean by syncing tables?

instead of re-updating a 40mb mdb frontend; you could jsut throw away
the frontend and make a new 1mb copy.

Queries take very little room compared to forms and reports.

are you really claiming that your solution is faster than mine?

I never said anything to that effect.

I just find it funny; one of these days you guys will be like 'im so
tired of all these workarounds' and then you can start building real
applications without having to deal with all the legwork

shrug

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

syncing tables.

copying little bull**** tables from the backend to the frontend.

copying little BS queries from a 'master' copy to the front end.

none of these hassles are difficult at all with an ADP-- since
everything is kept in a single place.

instead of scanning a huge table and bringing the whole table across
the wire; SQL Server just returns the results.

it's 10 times more efficient than MDB.

-Aaron


Tony Toews wrote:
" wrote:

if you didn't have to sync queries and tables woudln't your job be
easier?

What do you mean by syncing tables?

instead of re-updating a 40mb mdb frontend; you could jsut throw away
the frontend and make a new 1mb copy.

Queries take very little room compared to forms and reports.

are you really claiming that your solution is faster than mine?

I never said anything to that effect.

I just find it funny; one of these days you guys will be like 'im so
tired of all these workarounds' and then you can start building real
applications without having to deal with all the legwork

shrug

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

you sit there and say that MDB isn't faster?

and you still use MDB?

it just blows my mind.
isn't performance the only thing that matters??




Tony Toews wrote:
" wrote:

if you didn't have to sync queries and tables woudln't your job be
easier?

What do you mean by syncing tables?

instead of re-updating a 40mb mdb frontend; you could jsut throw away
the frontend and make a new 1mb copy.

Queries take very little room compared to forms and reports.

are you really claiming that your solution is faster than mine?

I never said anything to that effect.

I just find it funny; one of these days you guys will be like 'im so
tired of all these workarounds' and then you can start building real
applications without having to deal with all the legwork

shrug

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

if you didn't have to sync queries and tables woudln't your job be
easier?

What do you mean by syncing tables?

instead of re-updating a 40mb mdb frontend; you could jsut throw away
the frontend and make a new 1mb copy.

Queries take very little room compared to forms and reports.

are you really claiming that your solution is faster than mine?

I never said anything to that effect.

I just find it funny; one of these days you guys will be like 'im so
tired of all these workarounds' and then you can start building real
applications without having to deal with all the legwork

shrug

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

copying tables; linking tables; refreshing tables.

that is all a friggin PITA
it's unnecessary; it's unnecessarily complex.

keep all your tables and queries in one database-- the answer is
spelled

A
D
P

Access Data Projects

i just wonder.. if you admit that your solution is slower-- why do you
still use it?






Tony Toews wrote:
if you didn't have to sync queries and tables woudln't your job be
easier?

What do you mean by syncing tables?

instead of re-updating a 40mb mdb frontend; you could jsut throw away
the frontend and make a new 1mb copy.

Queries take very little room compared to forms and reports.

are you really claiming that your solution is faster than mine?

I never said anything to that effect.

I just find it funny; one of these days you guys will be like 'im so
tired of all these workarounds' and then you can start building real
applications without having to deal with all the legwork

shrug

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

On 26 Jun 2006 17:01:49 -0700, "
wrote:

isn't performance the only thing that matters??

No, it isn't.

Development time matters.
Cost matters.
User training matters.
Developer training matters.
User friendliness matters.

Maybe that explains some of your bias, Aaron; if you're using only one
metric and don't even consider any other criteria, then yes, you'll
have a biased viewpoint.

John W. Vinson[MVP]

John

Yes; of course all those things matter.

But performance is the most important thing.

For the record; SQL Server beats MDB in ALL of these metrics


Development time matters. - can a MDB query run multiple sql
statements? can Query Analyzer take multiple Access queries and run
them seperated by the GO command? Does MDB even support PARAMETERS
(not really in my opinion)

Cost matters - free. WTF are you talking about; do you work for Oracle
or something? Are you a commie? SQL Server is FREE and it has been for
what.. 8 years?

User training matters - how does ADP take a MINUTE more user training
the MDB? I mean; right-click-sort and right-click filter work better..
BECAUSE ITS FASTER

Developer training matters - compare and contrast developer training
opportunities for SQL Server vs MDB. I mean-- are there even schools
that specialize in MDB training?? Just because you and your idiot
developers are fat and lazy-- does that mean you should make your
customer SUFFER?

User friendliness matters - sitting around and waiting for a 600mb
table to be pulled across the network? you call that 'user
friendliness'



Access Data Projects beat MDB in _EVERY_ possible metric.
performance; stability; ease of development; reliability; ease of
administration; security; ease of development

STOP SMOKING CRACK KID







Maybe that explains some of your bias, Aaron; if you're using only one
metric and don't even consider any other criteria, then yes, you'll
have a biased viewpoint.



John Vinson wrote:
On 26 Jun 2006 17:01:49 -0700, "
wrote:

isn't performance the only thing that matters??

No, it isn't.

Development time matters.
Cost matters.
User training matters.
Developer training matters.
User friendliness matters.

Maybe that explains some of your bias, Aaron; if you're using only one
metric and don't even consider any other criteria, then yes, you'll
have a biased viewpoint.

John W. Vinson[MVP]

I mean seriously here John.

I can develop ANY adp solution _FASTER_ than you can develop it in MDB.

I challenge you to a race, ASSHOLE





John Vinson wrote:
On 26 Jun 2006 17:01:49 -0700, "
wrote:

isn't performance the only thing that matters??

No, it isn't.

Development time matters.
Cost matters.
User training matters.
Developer training matters.
User friendliness matters.

Maybe that explains some of your bias, Aaron; if you're using only one
metric and don't even consider any other criteria, then yes, you'll
have a biased viewpoint.

John W. Vinson[MVP]

wrote:
User friendliness matters

Maybe you should think about this when you post to newsgroups then.

Excuse me? Could you please provide 1, just 1, cite where *I* lied
about ADP.

If you wish to make false accusations about me, you better be able to
back that up with proof.

Calling me a flaming wimp? Perhaps you should look in the mirror.

wrote:
oh how funny

how cute

if you jerks woudln't always spread lies about ADP-- if you guys
wouldn't discourage people from using ADP maybe then I would be a
flaming wimp like you guys

as it is; I refuse to sit idly by while you MDB wimps spread
misinformation

I'm tired of hearing the exact same workaround for the exact same
problems.

microsoft invented a better way of working; it is called 'Access Data
Projects'






wrote:
wrote:
User friendliness matters

Maybe you should think about this when you post to newsgroups then.