Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsFormsForms ProgrammingQueriesModules / DAO / VBAReports / PrintingMacrosDatabase DesignSecurityConversionImporting / LinkingSQL Server / ADPMultiuser / NetworkingReplicationSetup / ConfigurationDeveloper ToolkitsNew UsersGeneral 1General 2
Access DirectoryToolsTutorialsUser Groups
Related Topics
SQL ServerOther DB ProductsMS OfficeMore Topics ...

Re: Are split databases a chimera of utility?

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.



You are accessing this site in a read-only mode. For full access to all member benefits, including message posting, please login or register. Registration is completely free, simple, and takes only a few seconds.

Login | Free AccessMonster.com registration | Whole discussion thread

The message you are replying to and its parents are listed in the reverse order with the most recent posts first. This might not be the whole discussion thread. To read all the messages in this thread please click here.

Re: Are split databases a chimera of utility?

Author29 Aug 2008 16:07
I'm a hybrid of a purchasing agent and half-baked DB guy.  I spent a week
reading tutorials about access and SQL and learned more than my boss, who
heretofore knew more than anyone else did about how our database runs.

Here's the skinny, Chris.  I had the idea to change a report's structure
from *running a lengthy query each time it is opened by one of the users* to
*reading data from a table that gets refreshed by an automated query*.  Now
my question to you (i.e. the forum) is twofold:
1. How can I update data in a table without incurring Run-Time Error 3009
"Lock table while in use"?
2. If I overwrite a table with a table that has an identical structure (only
different data), is it really modifying the structure?
I hate to argue semantics, but this situation has me peeved.  Not your
fault, I know.  Chris, thank you for your response.  I wish you and all who
read this a fantastic weekend.
-Pete

> No one can modify a database table's structure while it's in use.  Not even
> you.  Not in SQL Server, not in mysql, not in Oracle, not even in Access.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> >If I can't modify a table's structure while it is in use,
> >then what's the point?

Chris O'C29 Aug 2008 15:49
No one can modify a database table's structure while it's in use.  Not even
you.  Not in SQL Server, not in mysql, not in Oracle, not even in Access.

By splitting your db, you gain the advantages of speed for users accessing
the db, speed for developers in development and maintenance, exclusive access
to the front end db when necessary, ease of data backups and restores,
separation of processes for individual users, and you avoid many chances for
corruption.  Furthermore you get a chance to see how good a db developer you
are.  If performance improves after a db split in a multiuser db, you're good,
if performance degrades after a db split, well...

Chris
Microsoft MVP

>Are they just the tool of a false god?

>If I can't modify a table's structure while it is in use,
>then what's the point?

Author29 Aug 2008 12:41
Are they just the tool of a false god?  I split my database, and all I got
was this lousy backend.  Front End on each user's C:\ Drive.  Back End on the
shared network.  My Front End runs a query that replaces a table's contents
with updated data.  If I can't modify a table's structure while it is in use,
then what's the point?  Excuse me while I tinker with this thing, and pardon
me if I seem jaded.
inb4 SQL Server...
Poster: "My wife left me"
Aaron: "Switch to SQL Server"

Quick links:

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage




©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.