By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,584 Members | 3,458 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,584 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Access 2002 Performance Issues

P: n/a
Hi,

I've recently upgraded from Access 97 to Access 2002 & the performance
basically stinks. I have tried the following items listed below but it
has only had a minor impact:

1) Upgraded Jet 4 to Service Pack 7
2) Set Subdatasheet Name to [None] from [Auto]
3) Shortened the file name of the .MDB file
4) Made sure the Track name AutoCorrect info is off

Other than that I'm going to run the Index Tuning Wizard in SQL to see
if that has any impact.

Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

John
Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
20 Replies


P: n/a
Without some information on the environment... what you have and what you
are doing with it... it is likely to be impossible to help. And,
"performance basically stinks" doesn't really give us much to go on. Clarify
with some detail on these issues and perhaps someone can help.

In the meanwhile, particularly if it is a split database, multiuser, with
the data on a different machine in the network, visit MVP Tony Toews' site,
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm. He has the best collection of
information and links on multiuser Access-Jet performance and avoiding
corruption that I know of.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

"John" <jf*******@focusintegrated.com> wrote in message
news:71**************************@posting.google.c om...
Hi,

I've recently upgraded from Access 97 to Access 2002 & the performance
basically stinks. I have tried the following items listed below but it
has only had a minor impact:

1) Upgraded Jet 4 to Service Pack 7
2) Set Subdatasheet Name to [None] from [Auto]
3) Shortened the file name of the .MDB file
4) Made sure the Track name AutoCorrect info is off

Other than that I'm going to run the Index Tuning Wizard in SQL to see
if that has any impact.

Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

John

Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
jf*******@focusintegrated.com (John) wrote:
I've recently upgraded from Access 97 to Access 2002 & the performance
basically stinks. I have tried the following items listed below but it
has only had a minor impact:

1) Upgraded Jet 4 to Service Pack 7
2) Set Subdatasheet Name to [None] from [Auto]
3) Shortened the file name of the .MDB file
4) Made sure the Track name AutoCorrect info is off


LDB locking which a persistent recordset connection or an always open bound form
corrects (multiple users)

For more information on these, less likely causes, other tips and links to MS KB
articles visit my Access Performance FAQ page at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performancefaq.htm

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
Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
> Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Probably one that you won't like; go back to Access 97. I did.

I just hope that it will work for decades on upcoming OS.
Nov 12 '05 #4

P: n/a
To add some info on our environment...I am running XP with Access 2002
& utilizing linked tables to SQL 2000. To give you an example of
performance we have one form that went from a 20 second response time
(in Access 97) to over 5 minutes in Access 2002.

Hope this helps.

John

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.net> wrote in message news:<lL*****************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
Without some information on the environment... what you have and what you
are doing with it... it is likely to be impossible to help. And,
"performance basically stinks" doesn't really give us much to go on. Clarify
with some detail on these issues and perhaps someone can help.

In the meanwhile, particularly if it is a split database, multiuser, with
the data on a different machine in the network, visit MVP Tony Toews' site,
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm. He has the best collection of
information and links on multiuser Access-Jet performance and avoiding
corruption that I know of.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

"John" <jf*******@focusintegrated.com> wrote in message
news:71**************************@posting.google.c om...
Hi,

I've recently upgraded from Access 97 to Access 2002 & the performance
basically stinks. I have tried the following items listed below but it
has only had a minor impact:

1) Upgraded Jet 4 to Service Pack 7
2) Set Subdatasheet Name to [None] from [Auto]
3) Shortened the file name of the .MDB file
4) Made sure the Track name AutoCorrect info is off

Other than that I'm going to run the Index Tuning Wizard in SQL to see
if that has any impact.

Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

John

Nov 12 '05 #5

P: n/a
jf*******@focusintegrated.com (John) wrote in
news:71**************************@posting.google.c om:
To add some info on our environment...I am running XP with Access 2002
& utilizing linked tables to SQL 2000. To give you an example of
performance we have one form that went from a 20 second response time
(in Access 97) to over 5 minutes in Access 2002.


New versions of many applications are often less tolerant of error and
inefficiency than those they replace. When performance "basically stinks",
it's likely to be the result of poor design, poor script or poor code.
My XP applications don't run as fast as 97 applications. XP is bigger and
does more, so this isn't so strange. But the difference in speed is almost
unnoticeable. Of course one might think that the things that XP does that 97
can't do are infinitely faster (or infinitely slower, depending upon one's
point of view).

--
Lyle
(for e-mail refer to http://ffdba.com/contacts.htm)
Nov 12 '05 #6

P: n/a
On 29 Sep 2003 23:26:14 GMT, Lyle Fairfield
<Mi************@Invalid.Com> wrote:

<snip>

Of course one might think that the things that XP does that 97
can't do are infinitely faster (or infinitely slower, depending upon one's
point of view).


For a database desktop developer, what are some of the things in XP
that you use which are not provided in 97?

Steven
Nov 12 '05 #7

P: n/a
st***@nospam.com (Steve) wrote in news:3f***************@news.westnet.com:
On 29 Sep 2003 23:26:14 GMT, Lyle Fairfield
<Mi************@Invalid.Com> wrote:

<snip>

Of course one might think that the things that XP does that 97
can't do are infinitely faster (or infinitely slower, depending upon
one's point of view).


For a database desktop developer, what are some of the things in XP
that you use which are not provided in 97?

Steven


PivotChart and PivotTable Views
XML Support
Extended Property Support with Microsoft SQL Server 2000
Round-tripping
Multiple Undo and Redo
Batch Updates in Access Projects using Microsoft SQL Server
Updateable Off-line Data Access Pages
Conversion Error Logging
Subforms/Subreports that Live in Design view
Password Security in an Access Project
The Linked Table Wizard
Improved Support for International Complex-scripts
Improved Accessibility Features
Access 2002 now provides even greater ease in working with forms and
reports.
Pressing F8 in form or report Design will now display the field list.
Pressing ENTER after selecting a field in the field list in form or
report Design view will automatically add the field to the form
or
report design surface. Pressing CTRL+TAB will move the focus
from
a form or report section to a subsection. Two additional powers
(1000% and 500%) have been added to the Zoom option in print
preview.

--
Lyle
(for e-mail refer to http://ffdba.com/contacts.htm)
Nov 12 '05 #8

P: n/a
Have you tried Office 2003 yet, Lyle?

The Beta 2 with the update seems pretty solid to me. I've only used Access,
Word, and PowerPoint to any extent, and Excel once. I haven't used FrontPage
at all (but did hear a caution that it has a nasty bug that didn't get fixed
even in the release version).

Most of the enhancements tend to be for collaboration and enterprise stuff,
however. So, I'm not sure it's going to be a compelling update for everyone.
Nov 12 '05 #9

P: n/a
"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.net> wrote in
news:wN*******************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
Have you tried Office 2003 yet, Lyle?


Not yet ... I keep waiting for everything to be in sync ... new versions of
Windows ... Office ... and .Net ... then I'll buy a ball-buster developement
machine and be up-to-date for a day or two.

--
Lyle
(for e-mail refer to http://ffdba.com/contacts.htm)
Nov 12 '05 #10

P: n/a
Hello,
I have been following this thread and was most interested in
the MS support page named: "How to Speed Up Iterative Processes in
VBA"
Located at: http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=210408

I copied the slow and fast example functions, created a table
in my backend DB with the example fields, added 1000 records, and
called each function five times from a loop. The difference in time
was minimal: 28 seconds for the slow function and 27 seconds for the
fast function.

This seems kind of insignificant.
Would there be a better way to benchmark this?

Thanks,
Hank Reed
Nov 12 '05 #11

P: n/a
Very well explained. Reading this, I was looking for what I really miss
(!). There is only one feature I miss from ACC200X

PivotChart and PivotTable Views
XML Support
I think that there is some wizards to add XML support to ACC97, isn't it?
Extended Property Support with Microsoft SQL Server 2000
Alas, ACC97 will never be a true client/server application. Did anybody
ever see an ADP project significantly quicker than DAO with ODBC? Most
developers I know who did this were disappointed because there was no gain
in speed.
Round-tripping
I don't understand this one.
Multiple Undo and Redo
Batch Updates in Access Projects using Microsoft SQL Server
Updateable Off-line Data Access Pages
Conversion Error Logging
Subforms/Subreports that Live in Design view
Password Security in an Access Project
The Linked Table Wizard
There is one in ACC97 (?)
Improved Support for International Complex-scripts
Unicode?
Improved Accessibility Features
Access 2002 now provides even greater ease in working with forms and
reports.
This is what I miss most; jumping quickly from an object-code to another.
But I had serious corruption with code in ACC2000.
Pressing F8 in form or report Design will now display the field list.
Pressing ENTER after selecting a field in the field list in form or
report Design view will automatically add the field to the form
or
report design surface. Pressing CTRL+TAB will move the focus
from
a form or report section to a subsection. Two additional powers
(1000% and 500%) have been added to the Zoom option in print
preview.


Also; automatic compact & repair when exiting a db. No need for
msldbusr.dll to get the list of users attached to the current db.
Nov 12 '05 #12

P: n/a
OK, that helps. In newer versions of something, I'm not sure if it's the
SQL Server ODBC driver or Windows 2000 (did you also upgrade from Windows
98 to 2000 or XP?), the name resolution now tries TCP/IP name lookup first,
then Windows name lookup. This can cause problems if your computers point
to a DNS server that is not aware of the systems on your network.

Basically, what happens is this.
1. Ask the Primary DNS server for the address of the SQL Server ... time
out after 30 seconds.
2. Ask the Secondary DNS server for the address of the SQL Server ... time
out after 30 seconds.
3. Ask Windows networking (NetBIOS or WINS) for the address of the server,
and succeed immediately.

If this is your problem, there are only 2 possible solution I'm aware of.
1. Set up an internal DNS server on your network that -is- aware of your
internal machines, and make that the default DNS server for the comptuers
on the LAN.
2. Add an explicit entry to the HOSTS file on each client machine to
resolve the address of the SQL Server.

On 29 Sep 2003 16:13:07 -0700, jf*******@focusintegrated.com (John) wrote:
To add some info on our environment...I am running XP with Access 2002
& utilizing linked tables to SQL 2000. To give you an example of
performance we have one form that went from a 20 second response time
(in Access 97) to over 5 minutes in Access 2002.

Hope this helps.

John

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.net> wrote in message news:<lL*****************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
Without some information on the environment... what you have and what you
are doing with it... it is likely to be impossible to help. And,
"performance basically stinks" doesn't really give us much to go on. Clarify
with some detail on these issues and perhaps someone can help.

In the meanwhile, particularly if it is a split database, multiuser, with
the data on a different machine in the network, visit MVP Tony Toews' site,
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm. He has the best collection of
information and links on multiuser Access-Jet performance and avoiding
corruption that I know of.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

"John" <jf*******@focusintegrated.com> wrote in message
news:71**************************@posting.google.c om...
> Hi,
>
> I've recently upgraded from Access 97 to Access 2002 & the performance
> basically stinks. I have tried the following items listed below but it
> has only had a minor impact:
>
> 1) Upgraded Jet 4 to Service Pack 7
> 2) Set Subdatasheet Name to [None] from [Auto]
> 3) Shortened the file name of the .MDB file
> 4) Made sure the Track name AutoCorrect info is off
>
> Other than that I'm going to run the Index Tuning Wizard in SQL to see
> if that has any impact.
>
> Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
> John


Nov 12 '05 #13

P: n/a
Mi************@Invalid.Com (Lyle Fairfield) wrote in
<Xn*******************@130.133.1.4>:
st***@nospam.com (Steve) wrote in
news:3f***************@news.westnet.com:
On 29 Sep 2003 23:26:14 GMT, Lyle Fairfield
<Mi************@Invalid.Com> wrote:

<snip>

Of course one might think that the things that XP does that 97
can't do are infinitely faster (or infinitely slower, depending
upon one's point of view).

For a database desktop developer, what are some of the things in
XP that you use which are not provided in 97?


PivotChart and PivotTable Views


How many applications have you ever developed that would have
benefitted from these? How many required it?
XML Support
Have you ever used this, other than to get around the ADP's lack of
local tables?
Extended Property Support with Microsoft SQL Server 2000
Not much use if you're not using SQL Server 2K.
Round-tripping
???
Multiple Undo and Redo
How is this different from other versions of Access? Yes, the Undo
levels are limited, and some things are not undoable, but they
aren't only one level deep. Or do you mean in data editing?
Batch Updates in Access Projects using Microsoft SQL Server
Wasn't this possible with ADO in A2K?
Updateable Off-line Data Access Pages
How many DAPs have you developed? Do they still have the problems
MichKa adduced after the initial release in A2K?
Conversion Error Logging
Conversion from *what*? Earlier versions of Access? Other data
formats?
Subforms/Subreports that Live in Design view
???

I would like to go back to the A97 method where the
subforms/subreports are not embedded in the form/report, because
there just isn't enough space. At least, I'd like the option to
turn off the new behavior and return to the A97 behavior (which for
me is far, far easier in every way).
Password Security in an Access Project
What kind of password security? And if you're not using ADPs, is
this relevant?
The Linked Table Wizard
What about it? Improved? What improvements?
Improved Support for International Complex-scripts
Improved over A2K? How?
Improved Accessibility Features
Do you have clients that use these? What are those improved
features?
Access 2002 now provides even greater ease in working with forms
and reports.
Pressing F8 in form or report Design will now display the
field list. Pressing ENTER after selecting a field in the
field list in form or
report Design view will automatically add the field to
the form
or
report design surface. Pressing CTRL+TAB will
move the focus
from
a form or report section to a subsection. Two
additional powers (1000% and 500%) have been added to the Zoom
option in print preview.


While things like these shortcuts in form/report design/view are
nice little additions, none of them really provides functionality
that was not there already, except for the increased magnification
(something I'm not sure is of much benefit). A real benefit would
be a ZOOM in DESIGN view, so that you could deal with closely
spaced and highly formatted reports at the design stage.

Really, Lyle, you're being a shill for Microsoft here, just
repeating the features list that MS has put out. Most of these
things are not "features" that you need personally or use on a
daily basis (if ever).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #14

P: n/a
sa******@REMOVETHIShotmail.com (Saintor) wrote in
<WH*********************@wagner.videotron.net>:
Extended Property Support with Microsoft SQL Server 2000
Alas, ACC97 will never be a true client/server application. . . .


What? Ever heard of ODBC with passthrough queries?
. . . Did
anybody ever see an ADP project significantly quicker than DAO
with ODBC? Most developers I know who did this were disappointed
because there was no gain in speed.
Imagine that!

[]
Also; automatic compact & repair when exiting a db. . . .
Why is that good?
. . . No need for
msldbusr.dll to get the list of users attached to the current db.


Using the ADO UserRoster -- the one feature of ADO that makes it
worth using in otherwise DAO-only database (using late binding, of
course).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #15

P: n/a
ha********@aol.com (Hank Reed) wrote in
<f4**************************@posting.google.com >:
I have been following this thread and was most interested
in
the MS support page named: "How to Speed Up Iterative Processes in
VBA"
Located at: http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=210408

I copied the slow and fast example functions, created a
table
in my backend DB with the example fields, added 1000 records, and
called each function five times from a loop. The difference in
time was minimal: 28 seconds for the slow function and 27 seconds
for the fast function.

This seems kind of insignificant.
Would there be a better way to benchmark this?


That code could be performed in SQL much more quickly:

UPDATE [Order Details] SET Price = UnitCost * Qty;

This will be orders of magnitude faster than walking through all
the records and updating one record at a time.

However, while the article does not give the fastest method for
accomplishing the task at hand, it does make an important point:

When walking through recordsets (when you have no other choice) and
operating on fields, it will be faster to resolve the field
reference once, rather than each time you need the field. It's
definitely a technique worth remembering -- I often do *not* do
things the way they suggest.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #16

P: n/a
no****@nospam.nospam (Steve Jorgensen) wrote in
<26********************************@4ax.com>:
OK, that helps. In newer versions of something, I'm not sure if
it's the SQL Server ODBC driver or Windows 2000 (did you also
upgrade from Windows 98 to 2000 or XP?), the name resolution now
tries TCP/IP name lookup first, then Windows name lookup. This
can cause problems if your computers point to a DNS server that is
not aware of the systems on your network.

Basically, what happens is this.
1. Ask the Primary DNS server for the address of the SQL Server
... time out after 30 seconds.
2. Ask the Secondary DNS server for the address of the SQL Server
... time out after 30 seconds.
3. Ask Windows networking (NetBIOS or WINS) for the address of
the server, and succeed immediately.

If this is your problem, there are only 2 possible solution I'm
aware of. 1. Set up an internal DNS server on your network that
-is- aware of your internal machines, and make that the default
DNS server for the comptuers on the LAN.
2. Add an explicit entry to the HOSTS file on each client machine
to resolve the address of the SQL Server.


Your #2 will help only if there's an item 0 in your list:

0. Check HOSTS file on local workstation.

I have also never understood the interaction between HOSTS and
LMHOSTS. Obviously, the latter is Lan Manager, the IBM name for the
SMB networking that is the basis of all Windows Networking, but
I've never understood the significance of the two.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #17

P: n/a
dX********@bway.net.invalid (David W. Fenton) wrote in
news:94***************************@24.168.128.78:
Mi************@Invalid.Com (Lyle Fairfield) wrote in
<Xn*******************@130.133.1.4>:
st***@nospam.com (Steve) wrote in
news:3f***************@news.westnet.com:
On 29 Sep 2003 23:26:14 GMT, Lyle Fairfield
<Mi************@Invalid.Com> wrote:

<snip>
Of course one might think that the things that XP does that 97
can't do are infinitely faster (or infinitely slower, depending
upon one's point of view).
For a database desktop developer, what are some of the things in
XP that you use which are not provided in 97?
PivotChart and PivotTable Views


How many applications have you ever developed that would have
benefitted from these? How many required it?


None; none.
XML Support
Have you ever used this, other than to get around the ADP's lack of
local tables?


Nver for any reason.
Extended Property Support with Microsoft SQL Server 2000


Not much use if you're not using SQL Server 2K.
Round-tripping


???


You can now work with and modify Access 2000 files in Access 2002 without
converting the file format. This allows you to easily share different
versions of database files with other Access users.

Multiple Undo and Redo


How is this different from other versions of Access? Yes, the Undo
levels are limited, and some things are not undoable, but they
aren't only one level deep. Or do you mean in data editing?


You now have the ability to undo and redo multiple actions in Design view
in all objects in your Microsoft Access databases and in views, stored
procedures, and functions in your Microsoft Access project.

Batch Updates in Access Projects using Microsoft SQL Server


Wasn't this possible with ADO in A2K?

I don't know.

Updateable Off-line Data Access Pages


How many DAPs have you developed?

None.

Do they still have the problems MichKa adduced after the initial release in A2K? No idea.
Conversion Error Logging

Conversion from *what*? Earlier versions of Access? Other data
formats?

If problems are encountered when converting from Access 95 and later
versions, Access 2002 will now create a table that lists information about
each error, making it much easier to identify and solve problems.

Subforms/Subreports that Live in Design view You can now open subforms or subreports in their own Design view window
directly from within the form or report or from the View menu. Scrolling
has also been improved so that it is easier to work with subforms and
subreports in Design view.
I would like to go back to the A97 method where the
subforms/subreports are not embedded in the form/report, because
there just isn't enough space. At least, I'd like the option to
turn off the new behavior and return to the A97 behavior (which for
me is far, far easier in every way).
Password Security in an Access Project What kind of password security? And if you're not using ADPs, is
this relevant?

Access Project Features are relevant to Access Projects.
The Linked Table Wizard
What about it? Improved? What improvements?

The Linked Table Wizard guides you through the process of linking your
tables to a SQL Server database, and does this all from within your Access
project.

Improved Support for International Complex-scripts Improved over A2K? How?

Access 2002 now exposes complex-script interface items easily, which means
that with a simple click, you can switch the reading direction from left-
to-right to right-to-left in language-specific objects.

Improved Accessibility Features


Do you have clients that use these?

No.

What are those improved features?
Access 2002 now provides even greater ease in working with forms
and reports.
Pressing F8 in form or report Design will now display the
field list. Pressing ENTER after selecting a field in the
field list in form or
report Design view will automatically add the field to
the form
or
report design surface. Pressing CTRL+TAB will
move the focus
from
a form or report section to a subsection. Two
additional powers (1000% and 500%) have been added to the Zoom
option in print preview.


While things like these shortcuts in form/report design/view are
nice little additions, none of them really provides functionality
that was not there already, except for the increased magnification
(something I'm not sure is of much benefit). A real benefit would
be a ZOOM in DESIGN view, so that you could deal with closely
spaced and highly formatted reports at the design stage.

Really, Lyle, you're being a shill for Microsoft here, just
repeating the features list that MS has put out. Most of these
things are not "features" that you need personally or use on a
daily basis (if ever).


Actually I was trying to explain why XP is minimally slower. It does more
things; it's bigger.
Whether any of these as wonderful is another question.

--
Lyle
(for e-mail refer to http://ffdba.com/contacts.htm)
Nov 12 '05 #18

P: n/a
Mi************@Invalid.Com (Lyle Fairfield) wrote in
<Xn*******************@130.133.1.4>:
Actually I was trying to explain why XP is minimally slower. It
does more things; it's bigger.
Whether any of these as wonderful is another question.


Well, the question you replied to was:
For a database desktop developer, what are some of the things
in XP that you use which are not provided in 97?


You admit you don't use many of them.

So, it seems you either just didn't trim your quotation (you could
have deleted the above and left in the actual question), or you
replied to the wrong message.

I think you can see why I'd find your response confusing in that
context.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #19

P: n/a
dX********@bway.net.invalid (David W. Fenton) wrote in
news:94***************************@24.168.128.78:
Mi************@Invalid.Com (Lyle Fairfield) wrote in
<Xn*******************@130.133.1.4>:
Actually I was trying to explain why XP is minimally slower. It
does more things; it's bigger.
Whether any of these as wonderful is another question.


Well, the question you replied to was:
> For a database desktop developer, what are some of the things
> in XP that you use which are not provided in 97?


You admit you don't use many of them.

So, it seems you either just didn't trim your quotation (you could
have deleted the above and left in the actual question), or you
replied to the wrong message.

I think you can see why I'd find your response confusing in that
context.


Clearly, I didn't read the question so carefully.

--
Lyle
(for e-mail refer to http://ffdba.com/contacts.htm)
Nov 12 '05 #20

P: n/a
Mi************@Invalid.Com (Lyle Fairfield) wrote in
<Xn*******************@130.133.1.4>:
dX********@bway.net.invalid (David W. Fenton) wrote in
news:94***************************@24.168.128.7 8:
I think you can see why I'd find your response confusing in that
context.


Clearly, I didn't read the question so carefully.


Well, once I knew what you were responding to, I think our response
was actually valuable -- the things you listed probably *do*
contribute to performance decays.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #21

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.