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.
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?
| Author | 29 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'C | 29 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? |
| Author | 29 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: