A97 to A2000 Upgrade problem

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Kjell - 11 Jan 2005 11:25 GMT

Hi

Why has the database size so big difference between upgrading a ver97 to
ver2000 and building it from scratch in ver2000, the content is the same.?

It's an Access97 replicable database that I upgraded to Access2000 by using
the biult in tool in Access2000 for upgrading, but I also wanted to redo the
design.
Since I have good experience with VB6 I created an application that builds
my database from scratch and then moves all data piece by piece, record by
record. When all testings are done I must upgrade 5 identical replica sets
and this is the best way to make sure the design will be the same in all 5
sets.

But now I discovered that the size of my new built Access2000 was 20Mb
bigger than the upgraded version, it's 41Mb for the upgraded and 65Mb for the
new built, and I know that content is the same.

This is not logical to me since I know the following.
- I downsized several numerical fields from Double to Long, long to Integer
aso
- I removed like 20-30 fields not needed, some of them with 10000+ records

Having like 41Mb vs 65Mb thats close to 50% in difference, and of course, I
have repacked the files before judging the result.

What part of Access2000 am I missing when upgrading????

Reply to this Message

Allen Browne - 11 Jan 2005 11:44 GMT

Does compacting the database make any difference?

Did you turn on Unicode Compression for you Text and Memo fields?

Signature

Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps.org.

> Why has the database size so big difference between upgrading a ver97 to
> ver2000 and building it from scratch in ver2000, the content is the same.?
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> What part of Access2000 am I missing when upgrading????

Reply to this Message

Kjell - 11 Jan 2005 12:29 GMT

No, despite compacting it's still like 20Mb in difference, I'm rechecking all
tables, counting all records, I cannot find the reason for it.

I'm not using Unicode.

There must be something added to the New built Access2000.

Remember, the difference I experience is only applicable on REPLICABLE
databases.

Kjell

> Does compacting the database make any difference?
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> >
> > What part of Access2000 am I missing when upgrading????

Reply to this Message

Kjell - 11 Jan 2005 13:05 GMT

When I'm doing the same operation on a non replicable database holding the
same amount of data the New built Access2000 is actually smaller.

The old A97 db has after compacting 33Mb

The upgraded db has after compacting 37Mb
The new built db has after compacting 28Mb

This is logical to me since I'm removing several fields and downsizing
several fields when building it from scratch.

But also here we can see that Access2000 is adding something new to the db,
which is normal when upgrading software, I just would like to know what it is
and why a replicable db needs to be so much bigger when the datapart is
smaller.

I can only do this operation once with my cusomters databas and after that I
have to live with the result, I would like to know what I'm missing when
upgrading.

Kjell

Reply to this Message

david epsom dot com dot au - 13 Jan 2005 23:29 GMT

>it's 41Mb for the upgraded and 65Mb for the new built

> The upgraded db has after compacting 37Mb
> The new built db has after compacting 28Mb

Which is it?

An "opened" database is sometimes bigger than a "converted"
database, because an "opened" database contains both an
A97 (VB5) and an A2K (VB6) copy of the project.

(david)

> When I'm doing the same operation on a non replicable database holding the
> same amount of data the New built Access2000 is actually smaller.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Kjell

Reply to this Message