By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
459,497 Members | 1,287 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 459,497 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Can't Open Anymore Databases

P: n/a
Access97 Database

The database is split into a frontend and backend and not connected to any other
database. The database has an unbound report with 15 subreports. Some of the
subreports include Excel charts in unbound object frames. When I add 3
additional subreports, I get the error message that Access can't open any more
databases. Can anyone suggest what may be causing the error message.

Thanks!

Steve
Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
46 Replies


P: n/a
"Steve" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:25*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
Access97 Database

The database is split into a frontend and backend and not connected to
any other database. The database has an unbound report with 15
subreports. Some of the subreports include Excel charts in unbound
object frames. When I add 3 additional subreports, I get the error
message that Access can't open any more databases. Can anyone suggest
what may be causing the error message.


Too many databases are open.

--
Lyle
(for e-mail refer to http://ffdba.com/contacts.htm)
Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
There are only two databases open - the frontend and the backend.
"Lyle Fairfield" <Mi************@Invalid.Com> wrote in message
news:Xn*******************@130.133.1.17...
"Steve" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:25*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
Access97 Database

The database is split into a frontend and backend and not connected to
any other database. The database has an unbound report with 15
subreports. Some of the subreports include Excel charts in unbound
object frames. When I add 3 additional subreports, I get the error
message that Access can't open any more databases. Can anyone suggest
what may be causing the error message.


Too many databases are open.

--
Lyle
(for e-mail refer to http://ffdba.com/contacts.htm)

Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in news:fF4Xb.3783$hm4.3324
@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
There are only two databases open - the frontend and the backend.
Uh Huh!
"Lyle Fairfield" <Mi************@Invalid.Com> wrote in message
news:Xn*******************@130.133.1.17...
"Steve" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:25*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
> Access97 Database
>
> The database is split into a frontend and backend and not connected to
> any other database. The database has an unbound report with 15
> subreports. Some of the subreports include Excel charts in unbound
> object frames. When I add 3 additional subreports, I get the error
> message that Access can't open any more databases. Can anyone suggest
> what may be causing the error message.


Too many databases are open.


--
Lyle
(for e-mail refer to http://ffdba.com/contacts.htm)
Nov 12 '05 #4

P: n/a
Lyle Fairfield <Mi************@Invalid.Com> wrote in
news:Xn*******************@130.133.1.17:
"Steve" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:25*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
Access97 Database

The database is split into a frontend and backend and not
connected to any other database. The database has an unbound
report with 15 subreports. Some of the subreports include Excel
charts in unbound object frames. When I add 3 additional
subreports, I get the error message that Access can't open any
more databases. Can anyone suggest what may be causing the error
message.


Too many databases are open.


On the contrary, this error message can pop up when you've exceeded
the number of available table handles.

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what it claims.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #5

P: n/a
Thanks, David,

What do you mean by "table handles"?

Steve
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.90...
Lyle Fairfield <Mi************@Invalid.Com> wrote in
news:Xn*******************@130.133.1.17:
"Steve" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:25*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
Access97 Database

The database is split into a frontend and backend and not
connected to any other database. The database has an unbound
report with 15 subreports. Some of the subreports include Excel
charts in unbound object frames. When I add 3 additional
subreports, I get the error message that Access can't open any
more databases. Can anyone suggest what may be causing the error
message.


Too many databases are open.


On the contrary, this error message can pop up when you've exceeded
the number of available table handles.

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what it claims.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 12 '05 #6

P: n/a
While the error message is not the most explanatory in the world - what it
means by 'database' is not necessarily what you and I would understand by
the word - it basically means you're trying to do too many things at one
time. You need to simplify that report - perhaps you can split it into two
reports, and print them one after the other?

--
Brendan Reynolds

"Steve" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in message
news:25*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
Access97 Database

The database is split into a frontend and backend and not connected to any other database. The database has an unbound report with 15 subreports. Some of the subreports include Excel charts in unbound object frames. When I add 3
additional subreports, I get the error message that Access can't open any more databases. Can anyone suggest what may be causing the error message.

Thanks!

Steve

Nov 12 '05 #7

P: n/a
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:X2*****************@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
What do you mean by "table handles"?


See:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...aynet%4024.168
..128.86

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #8

P: n/a
Thanks, Brendan!

Yes, it is a very complex report and I may need to resort to your suggestion!

Steve
"Brendan Reynolds" <br******@removethisindigo.ie> wrote in message
news:H7*****************@news.indigo.ie...
While the error message is not the most explanatory in the world - what it
means by 'database' is not necessarily what you and I would understand by
the word - it basically means you're trying to do too many things at one
time. You need to simplify that report - perhaps you can split it into two
reports, and print them one after the other?

--
Brendan Reynolds

"Steve" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in message
news:25*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
Access97 Database

The database is split into a frontend and backend and not connected to any

other
database. The database has an unbound report with 15 subreports. Some of

the
subreports include Excel charts in unbound object frames. When I add 3
additional subreports, I get the error message that Access can't open any

more
databases. Can anyone suggest what may be causing the error message.

Thanks!

Steve


Nov 12 '05 #9

P: n/a
David,

I read the thread you reference and have a good idea now on how to count "table
handles". But still what specifically is a "table handle"?

Thanks!

Steve
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.90...
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:X2*****************@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
What do you mean by "table handles"?


See:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...aynet%4024.168
.128.86

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 12 '05 #10

P: n/a
Steve wrote:
Access97 Database

The database is split into a frontend and backend and not connected to any other
database. The database has an unbound report with 15 subreports. Some of the
subreports include Excel charts in unbound object frames. When I add 3
additional subreports, I get the error message that Access can't open any more
databases. Can anyone suggest what may be causing the error message.

Thanks!

Steve


In Online help search for Specifications. (MS Access). There is a spec list for
Reports/Forms. Maybe you exceeded one of those.
Nov 12 '05 #11

P: n/a
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:jr*****************@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.90...
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:X2*****************@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
> What do you mean by "table handles"?


See:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...onbwaynet%4024.
168 .128.86


I read the thread you reference and have a good idea now on how to
count "table handles". But still what specifically is a "table
handle"?


My understanding is that it's an instance of an internal data
structure used to keep track of pointers to open tables and
recordsets.

I don't remember if Michael Kaplan weighed in on this subject back
in 1998 when I first encountered the problem or not.

What I did discover was that reducing the number of table handles
used, as estimated by me by looking at recordsources, rowsources and
recordsets, my application no longer hit the ceiling (I was dealing
with a mere 1024), and performed better to boot.

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

P: n/a
"Steve" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote:
The database is split into a frontend and backend and not connected to any other
database. The database has an unbound report with 15 subreports. Some of the
subreports include Excel charts in unbound object frames. When I add 3
additional subreports, I get the error message that Access can't open any more
databases. Can anyone suggest what may be causing the error message.


I had the same error message running a Union query which was pulling in data from
about 20 tables. I ended up creating a temporary table, stuffing in the results and
running the report against the temporary table.

So it means you have too many connections open to the backend. And each subreport is
an open connection.

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 #13

P: n/a
Tony Toews <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in
news:qu********************************@4ax.com:
"Steve" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote:
The database is split into a frontend and backend and not
connected to any other database. The database has an unbound
report with 15 subreports. Some of the subreports include Excel
charts in unbound object frames. When I add 3 additional
subreports, I get the error message that Access can't open any
more databases. Can anyone suggest what may be causing the error
message.
I had the same error message running a Union query which was
pulling in data from about 20 tables. I ended up creating a
temporary table, stuffing in the results and running the report
against the temporary table.

So it means you have too many connections open to the backend.


Not necessarily.
And each subreport is an open connection.


In most cases, no, that's not true.

--
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
Thanks for the thought! I checked that and not even close to any of those.

PS I prefer French!
"Salad" <oi*@vinegar.com> wrote in message news:40***************@vinegar.com...
Steve wrote:
Access97 Database

The database is split into a frontend and backend and not connected to any other database. The database has an unbound report with 15 subreports. Some of the
subreports include Excel charts in unbound object frames. When I add 3
additional subreports, I get the error message that Access can't open any more databases. Can anyone suggest what may be causing the error message.

Thanks!

Steve
In Online help search for Specifications. (MS Access). There is a spec list

for Reports/Forms. Maybe you exceeded one of those.

Nov 12 '05 #15

P: n/a
According to David this is a problem in Access97. He says Access2000 and newer
have higher ceilings before this limitaion is reached!

Thanks for your response, Tony!
"Tony Toews" <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:qu********************************@4ax.com...
"Steve" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote:
The database is split into a frontend and backend and not connected to any otherdatabase. The database has an unbound report with 15 subreports. Some of the
subreports include Excel charts in unbound object frames. When I add 3
additional subreports, I get the error message that Access can't open any moredatabases. Can anyone suggest what may be causing the error message.
I had the same error message running a Union query which was pulling in data

from about 20 tables. I ended up creating a temporary table, stuffing in the results and running the report against the temporary table.

So it means you have too many connections open to the backend. And each subreport is an open connection.

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 #16

P: n/a
David,

What are your thoughts here?

Steve
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.86...
Tony Toews <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in
news:qu********************************@4ax.com:
"Steve" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote:
The database is split into a frontend and backend and not
connected to any other database. The database has an unbound
report with 15 subreports. Some of the subreports include Excel
charts in unbound object frames. When I add 3 additional
subreports, I get the error message that Access can't open any
more databases. Can anyone suggest what may be causing the error
message.


I had the same error message running a Union query which was
pulling in data from about 20 tables. I ended up creating a
temporary table, stuffing in the results and running the report
against the temporary table.

So it means you have too many connections open to the backend.


Not necessarily.
And each subreport is an open connection.


In most cases, no, that's not true.

--
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
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:iV*****************@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
According to David this is a problem in Access97. He says
Access2000 and newer have higher ceilings before this limitaion is
reached!


Access 97 was release with a table handles limit of 1024. Service
Release 1 doubled that. So far as I know, all subsequent versions of
Access maintain that limit.

I can't find anything at all about table handles in the MS Knowledge
Base or through normal Googling. If you go to Google Groups and
search for "table handles" group:comp.databases.ms-access the second
page of results starts getting you to posts by someone other than me
(sorry!). MichKa responds in a number of threads, and I'm pretty
certain he was the one I learned this from.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #18

P: n/a
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:49*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.86...
Tony Toews <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in
news:qu********************************@4ax.com:
> "Steve" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote:
>
>>The database is split into a frontend and backend and not
>>connected to any other database. The database has an unbound
>>report with 15 subreports. Some of the subreports include Excel
>>charts in unbound object frames. When I add 3 additional
>>subreports, I get the error message that Access can't open any
>>more databases. Can anyone suggest what may be causing the
>>error message.
>
> I had the same error message running a Union query which was
> pulling in data from about 20 tables. I ended up creating a
> temporary table, stuffing in the results and running the report
> against the temporary table.
>
> So it means you have too many connections open to the backend.


Not necessarily.
> And each subreport is an open connection.


In most cases, no, that's not true.


What are your thoughts here?


Well, my understanding of the way Access works is that it doesn't
create multiple connections to the back end except if you tell it
to. I don't see why two subreports would use different connections.

Now, I admit I have seen a couple of cases where LDBUSR.DLL
indicated two connections from one front end even though there was
no code that was open additional connections.

Likewise I can't say how ADO works. But given that there are default
connections, I'd think you'd be re-using a single connection (or a
small number of connections).

Finally, I've seen the error message very often when it had nothing
to do with number of databases.

--
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
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
Now, I admit I have seen a couple of cases where LDBUSR.DLL
indicated two connections from one front end even though there was
no code that was open additional connections.


I'm not at all sure though that looking at the number of users is actually going to
tell us how many connections Access is using.

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 #20

P: n/a
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
I had the same error message running a Union query which was
pulling in data from about 20 tables. I ended up creating a
temporary table, stuffing in the results and running the report
against the temporary table.

So it means you have too many connections open to the backend.


Not necessarily.
And each subreport is an open connection.


In most cases, no, that's not true.


<shrug> Maybe my terminology is incorrect when I use connections. File handles might
be a better term.

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 #21

P: n/a
Yes, I did weigh in there.... just think of them as pointers to data. Its
actually pure luck (bad I guess) whether the error claims that you cannot
open tables or databases -- which has to do with nothing other than the
operation that happens to take you over the limit.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.86...
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:jr*****************@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.90...
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:X2*****************@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net:

> What do you mean by "table handles"?

See:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...onbwaynet%4024.
168 .128.86


I read the thread you reference and have a good idea now on how to
count "table handles". But still what specifically is a "table
handle"?


My understanding is that it's an instance of an internal data
structure used to keep track of pointers to open tables and
recordsets.

I don't remember if Michael Kaplan weighed in on this subject back
in 1998 when I first encountered the problem or not.

What I did discover was that reducing the number of table handles
used, as estimated by me by looking at recordsources, rowsources and
recordsets, my application no longer hit the ceiling (I was dealing
with a mere 1024), and performed better to boot.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 12 '05 #22

P: n/a
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote...
Finally, I've seen the error message very often when it had nothing
to do with number of databases.


Well, yes and no.

Access is not using DAO for its internal operations, but imagine they were.
You could have code that said

Set db = CurrentDb

or somesuch and then new instances would be created.

Now lets say that both OpenRecordset and CurrentDb calls both were opening
up objects, and say there was one big object table. It would be pure luck
whether the ceiling would be hit on a database call or a recordset or a
table or whatever. Thanks roughly akin to what the situation is.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.

Nov 12 '05 #23

P: n/a
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote...
Finally, I've seen the error message very often when it had
nothing to do with number of databases.


Well, yes and no.

Access is not using DAO for its internal operations, but imagine
they were. You could have code that said

Set db = CurrentDb

or somesuch and then new instances would be created.

Now lets say that both OpenRecordset and CurrentDb calls both were
opening up objects, and say there was one big object table. It
would be pure luck whether the ceiling would be hit on a database
call or a recordset or a table or whatever. Thanks roughly akin to
what the situation is.


But the underlying reason is not connections, no?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #24

P: n/a
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
Yes, I did weigh in there.... just think of them as pointers to
data. Its actually pure luck (bad I guess) whether the error
claims that you cannot open tables or databases -- which has to do
with nothing other than the operation that happens to take you
over the limit.


But will coding to conserve connections solve the problem? I don't
think so, as it's not a matter of database connections, but of
something you have no control over except insofar as you can control
to a certain extent the number of tables, queries and recordsets you
open.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #25

P: n/a
David,

I converted my Access97 database to AccessXP(2000mode) and still have the same
problem with the message coming up saying Can't Open Any More Databases. If I
read you right, you said the limit of Table Handles in Access97 was 1024 but in
Access2000 and later that limit was doubled. If this is the case, why do you
suppose I still have the problem? My report works fine when it has only 15
subreports but when I add three more, the message appears. The three subreports
are not substantially different than the first 15 to in and of themselves take
over 1024 "table handles".

Comments?

Thanks for continuing to follow this thread!

Steve
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.86...
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
Yes, I did weigh in there.... just think of them as pointers to
data. Its actually pure luck (bad I guess) whether the error
claims that you cannot open tables or databases -- which has to do
with nothing other than the operation that happens to take you
over the limit.


But will coding to conserve connections solve the problem? I don't
think so, as it's not a matter of database connections, but of
something you have no control over except insofar as you can control
to a certain extent the number of tables, queries and recordsets you
open.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 12 '05 #26

P: n/a
David,

I'm getting lost! Are you still talking about "Table Handles" and using your
system of counting you explained in an earlier post not exceeding a ceiling of
1024 or someother number?

Steve
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.86...
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote...
Finally, I've seen the error message very often when it had
nothing to do with number of databases.


Well, yes and no.

Access is not using DAO for its internal operations, but imagine
they were. You could have code that said

Set db = CurrentDb

or somesuch and then new instances would be created.

Now lets say that both OpenRecordset and CurrentDb calls both were
opening up objects, and say there was one big object table. It
would be pure luck whether the ceiling would be hit on a database
call or a recordset or a table or whatever. Thanks roughly akin to
what the situation is.


But the underlying reason is not connections, no?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 12 '05 #27

P: n/a
David,

What specifically do you recommend doing to make the error message go away?

Steve
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.86...
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote...
Finally, I've seen the error message very often when it had
nothing to do with number of databases.


Well, yes and no.

Access is not using DAO for its internal operations, but imagine
they were. You could have code that said

Set db = CurrentDb

or somesuch and then new instances would be created.

Now lets say that both OpenRecordset and CurrentDb calls both were
opening up objects, and say there was one big object table. It
would be pure luck whether the ceiling would be hit on a database
call or a recordset or a table or whatever. Thanks roughly akin to
what the situation is.


But the underlying reason is not connections, no?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 12 '05 #28

P: n/a
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:7q*****************@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
I'm getting lost! Are you still talking about "Table Handles" and
using your system of counting you explained in an earlier post not
exceeding a ceiling of 1024 or someother number?


Well, the ceiling after A97 with Jet 3.51 or later is 2048.

But, yes, I'm looking at table handles.

The "databases" wording is a red herring, in my opinion, that
doesn't really mean what we tend to think it means (i.e.,
connections).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #29

P: n/a
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:7r*****************@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
What specifically do you recommend doing to make the error message
go away?


Reduce the number of tables, queries and recordsources that you use,
as outlined in the Google Groups URL I gave you at the beginning.

I'm not certain if what counts is simultaneous table handles or
number of table handles used within a session. I tend to suspect the
latter, actually, as I can't see how one would hit it so easily.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #30

P: n/a
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:Pl*****************@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
I converted my Access97 database to AccessXP(2000mode) and still
have the same problem with the message coming up saying Can't Open
Any More Databases. If I read you right, you said the limit of
Table Handles in Access97 was 1024 . . .
Access97 *before* the Jet 3.51 update. After that, it was 2048.

If you were using SR1 or SR2, you probably had Jet 3.51, so 2048 is
the operative number.
. . . but in Access2000 and later
that limit was doubled. If this is the case, why do you suppose I
still have the problem? My report works fine when it has only 15
subreports but when I add three more, the message appears. The
three subreports are not substantially different than the first 15
to in and of themselves take over 1024 "table handles".


I suspect that 2048 is the number that is the problem, not 1024.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #31

P: n/a
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote...
But the underlying reason is not connections, no?


Its not. But the fact that the error message can refer to any object is
related.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.

Nov 12 '05 #32

P: n/a
David,

Hope you are still with this thread!

Again thanks for your time yesterday contributing to the thread.

I discovered something else about my report that maybe you can comment on. If I
put the three new subreports in the report I can open the report in preview with
no problem. There are only 7 pages so I even went to each page separately to
allow Access to format each page. However, as soon as I tried to print (File -
Print - Page) ant page, I get the message Can't Open Any More Databases. I did
notice that Access started to reformat after I clicked on Print.

When the report opens in preview or especially after all the pages are
formatted, are all the table handles open at that point?

I also tried just adding 1 new subreport and got the same results. I was able to
preview the report but got the message as soon as I tried to print.

Comments?

Steve
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.90...
Lyle Fairfield <Mi************@Invalid.Com> wrote in
news:Xn*******************@130.133.1.17:
"Steve" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:25*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
Access97 Database

The database is split into a frontend and backend and not
connected to any other database. The database has an unbound
report with 15 subreports. Some of the subreports include Excel
charts in unbound object frames. When I add 3 additional
subreports, I get the error message that Access can't open any
more databases. Can anyone suggest what may be causing the error
message.


Too many databases are open.


On the contrary, this error message can pop up when you've exceeded
the number of available table handles.

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what it claims.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 12 '05 #33

P: n/a
To continue ---

I added a commandbar to the report to do a DoCmd.Printout,5,5. Previously I was
using File - Print-Page 5. Page 5 has three consecutive subreports. File -
Print-Page 5 raises the Can't Open Any More Databases message;
DoCmd.Printout,5,5 does not. However, with DoCmd.Printout,5,5, I get only the
first subreport on page 5.

Comments?

One thing I typically do is build a database in modules where most objects have
a single use. Even if say in this report a query can be used in more than one
subreport, I create duplicate queries. Using the modular approach gives me peace
of mind when making changes to a database that I am not affcting something else
somewhere else. At different times I have watched the file size and have noticed
no significant diference in file size when using the modular approach. I am
going to look at everything that goes into this report and try eliminating
duplicate objects to decrease what you call "table handles".

Steve
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in message
news:ch****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
David,

Hope you are still with this thread!

Again thanks for your time yesterday contributing to the thread.

I discovered something else about my report that maybe you can comment on. If I put the three new subreports in the report I can open the report in preview with no problem. There are only 7 pages so I even went to each page separately to
allow Access to format each page. However, as soon as I tried to print (File -
Print - Page) ant page, I get the message Can't Open Any More Databases. I did
notice that Access started to reformat after I clicked on Print.

When the report opens in preview or especially after all the pages are
formatted, are all the table handles open at that point?

I also tried just adding 1 new subreport and got the same results. I was able to preview the report but got the message as soon as I tried to print.

Comments?

Steve
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.90...
Lyle Fairfield <Mi************@Invalid.Com> wrote in
news:Xn*******************@130.133.1.17:
"Steve" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:25*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net:

> Access97 Database
>
> The database is split into a frontend and backend and not
> connected to any other database. The database has an unbound
> report with 15 subreports. Some of the subreports include Excel
> charts in unbound object frames. When I add 3 additional
> subreports, I get the error message that Access can't open any
> more databases. Can anyone suggest what may be causing the error
> message.

Too many databases are open.


On the contrary, this error message can pop up when you've exceeded
the number of available table handles.

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what it claims.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc


Nov 12 '05 #34

P: n/a
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:2e*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
One thing I typically do is build a database in modules where most
objects have a single use. Even if say in this report a query can
be used in more than one subreport, I create duplicate queries.
Using the modular approach gives me peace of mind when making
changes to a database that I am not affcting something else
somewhere else. At different times I have watched the file size
and have noticed no significant diference in file size when using
the modular approach. I am going to look at everything that goes
into this report and try eliminating duplicate objects to decrease
what you call "table handles".


Are your queries in the subreports based on queries? If so, try
rewriting those queries to use tables directly, if possible. If that
doesn't help, try putting the query SQL into the subreport's
recordsource. I found that doing this reduced table handle usage
drastically and eventually eliminated the problem when I encountered
it. It did mean that I had to make a major change to my pre-existing
programming practices, in that I had to stop using so many nested
saved queries.

As it turned out, within two years, I was no longer programming too
many reports that would have used saved queries, anyway, as more and
more of my reports were using SQL generated on-they-fly in the
report's OnOpen events. Obviously, that doesn't apply so much to
subreports, but I don't use saved queries much in reports at all.

And I haven't encountered this message since 1998.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #35

P: n/a
CDB
I understand that domain functions such as DSum add to the count. and eg
where the subform is in the detail section, are iterated as many times as
the detail records.

In additions to David's techniques, I abandoned use of domain functions,
including Trevor Best's substitutes, some years ago. Usually, a more
SQL-oriented approach (ie sets) remove the need.

Clive
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.86...
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:2e*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
....
Are your queries in the subreports based on queries? If so, try
rewriting those queries to use tables directly, if possible. If that
doesn't help, try putting the query SQL into the subreport's
recordsource. I found that doing this reduced table handle usage
drastically and eventually eliminated the problem when I encountered
it. It did mean that I had to make a major change to my pre-existing
programming practices, in that I had to stop using so many nested
saved queries.

As it turned out, within two years, I was no longer programming too
many reports that would have used saved queries, anyway, as more and
more of my reports were using SQL generated on-they-fly in the
report's OnOpen events. Obviously, that doesn't apply so much to
subreports, but I don't use saved queries much in reports at all.

And I haven't encountered this message since 1998.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 12 '05 #36

P: n/a
Thanks, David! That sounds like a plan. I'll try it.

Steve
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.86...
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:2e*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
One thing I typically do is build a database in modules where most
objects have a single use. Even if say in this report a query can
be used in more than one subreport, I create duplicate queries.
Using the modular approach gives me peace of mind when making
changes to a database that I am not affcting something else
somewhere else. At different times I have watched the file size
and have noticed no significant diference in file size when using
the modular approach. I am going to look at everything that goes
into this report and try eliminating duplicate objects to decrease
what you call "table handles".


Are your queries in the subreports based on queries? If so, try
rewriting those queries to use tables directly, if possible. If that
doesn't help, try putting the query SQL into the subreport's
recordsource. I found that doing this reduced table handle usage
drastically and eventually eliminated the problem when I encountered
it. It did mean that I had to make a major change to my pre-existing
programming practices, in that I had to stop using so many nested
saved queries.

As it turned out, within two years, I was no longer programming too
many reports that would have used saved queries, anyway, as more and
more of my reports were using SQL generated on-they-fly in the
report's OnOpen events. Obviously, that doesn't apply so much to
subreports, but I don't use saved queries much in reports at all.

And I haven't encountered this message since 1998.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 12 '05 #37

P: n/a
"CDB" <al***@delete.wave.co.nz> wrote in
news:c0**********@news.wave.co.nz:
I understand that domain functions such as DSum add to the count.
and eg where the subform is in the detail section, are iterated as
many times as the detail records.
That's very interesting. I hadn't thought about that, and it would
explain a lot about my situation back in 1998, where I had one form
that was doing a complex lookup with a function to get a certain
piece of information to display in a continuous form.

Lightbulb on! Finally!
In additions to David's techniques, I abandoned use of domain
functions, including Trevor Best's substitutes, some years ago.
Usually, a more SQL-oriented approach (ie sets) remove the need.


I think what you mean is that when you're returning rows of data,
it's not a good idea to use functions to populated columns if each
call to those functions does a lookup of some sort, but instead, to
get the data with the main SQL recordset.

That makes a great deal of sense.

But it's not possible in all cases!

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #38

P: n/a
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:oS*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.86...
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:2e*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
> One thing I typically do is build a database in modules where
> most objects have a single use. Even if say in this report a
> query can be used in more than one subreport, I create
> duplicate queries. Using the modular approach gives me peace of
> mind when making changes to a database that I am not affcting
> something else somewhere else. At different times I have
> watched the file size and have noticed no significant diference
> in file size when using the modular approach. I am going to
> look at everything that goes into this report and try
> eliminating duplicate objects to decrease what you call "table
> handles".


Are your queries in the subreports based on queries? If so, try
rewriting those queries to use tables directly, if possible. If
that doesn't help, try putting the query SQL into the subreport's
recordsource. I found that doing this reduced table handle usage
drastically and eventually eliminated the problem when I
encountered it. It did mean that I had to make a major change to
my pre-existing programming practices, in that I had to stop
using so many nested saved queries.

As it turned out, within two years, I was no longer programming
too many reports that would have used saved queries, anyway, as
more and more of my reports were using SQL generated on-they-fly
in the report's OnOpen events. Obviously, that doesn't apply so
much to subreports, but I don't use saved queries much in reports
at all.

And I haven't encountered this message since 1998.


Thanks, David! That sounds like a plan. I'll try it.


I suggest you look at my reply to Clive's post, as he pointed out
something that I've never thought of, and that's domain
lookup/aggregate functions, whether the ones provided in Access, or
custom lookup functions. That had never occurred to me as a source
of table handle usage, but it obviously would be, at least one for
each call to the function. Twenty instances of a 100-row
subform/subreport with a lookup function would be using a minimum of
2000 table handles for the lookups, in addition to the handles for
the recordsource of each subreport. Depending on how Access
conserves those table handles (does it re-release them to the pool
of available table handles?), you could very easily use them up.

This is a big realization for me!

It's a technique I used to use a lot more than I do now.

And that might be why I haven't run into the problem recently.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #39

P: n/a
David,

Solved my problem and thought you might be interested!

I began tinkering with everything comprising my report with the intent of
reducing "table handles". After reducing the number of queries (I did not have
any domain functions) I found the message about loading databases actually
ocurred sooner. This was the first clue that the count of "table handles" was
not my problem. I then converted the original database to AccessXP(2000 mode)
thinking from what you said here that the problem would go away because the
limit of "table handles" should be double that of Access97. The problem
remained! I was now pretty convinced that the count of "table handles" was not
the problem in my report but I now wondered what caused the problem to get
apparently worse when I reduced the number of queries. After close examination I
determined that although I had reduced the number of queries, I had increased
the number of times I was calling for data from a specific table. So I went back
to the drawing board and reduced the number of calls to that table. I then ran
the report and voila; the message about not being able to load any more databses
did not appear. Apparently, related to "table handles", there is a limitation as
to the number of calls to a specific table (and I assume query too) that can be
made. Unfortunately, I did not count up how many calls to the table I was making
originally or keep track of how many calls I removed before the report worked.

Once again, thanks for all the time you spent with me on this thread - I learned
a lot from you!

Steve
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.74...
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:iV*****************@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
According to David this is a problem in Access97. He says
Access2000 and newer have higher ceilings before this limitaion is
reached!


Access 97 was release with a table handles limit of 1024. Service
Release 1 doubled that. So far as I know, all subsequent versions of
Access maintain that limit.

I can't find anything at all about table handles in the MS Knowledge
Base or through normal Googling. If you go to Google Groups and
search for "table handles" group:comp.databases.ms-access the second
page of results starts getting you to posts by someone other than me
(sorry!). MichKa responds in a number of threads, and I'm pretty
certain he was the one I learned this from.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 12 '05 #40

P: n/a
As I menioned on another thread, the numbe of table handles does not refer
to different tables/queries/databases opened, but the number of times
objects are being opened, in total -- thus if the same table has to be
opened 30 different ways then that adds 30 to the list, etc.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in message
news:QS*****************@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
David,

Solved my problem and thought you might be interested!

I began tinkering with everything comprising my report with the intent of
reducing "table handles". After reducing the number of queries (I did not have any domain functions) I found the message about loading databases actually
ocurred sooner. This was the first clue that the count of "table handles" was not my problem. I then converted the original database to AccessXP(2000 mode) thinking from what you said here that the problem would go away because the limit of "table handles" should be double that of Access97. The problem
remained! I was now pretty convinced that the count of "table handles" was not the problem in my report but I now wondered what caused the problem to get
apparently worse when I reduced the number of queries. After close examination I determined that although I had reduced the number of queries, I had increased the number of times I was calling for data from a specific table. So I went back to the drawing board and reduced the number of calls to that table. I then ran the report and voila; the message about not being able to load any more databses did not appear. Apparently, related to "table handles", there is a limitation as to the number of calls to a specific table (and I assume query too) that can be made. Unfortunately, I did not count up how many calls to the table I was making originally or keep track of how many calls I removed before the report worked.
Once again, thanks for all the time you spent with me on this thread - I learned a lot from you!

Steve
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.74...
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:iV*****************@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
According to David this is a problem in Access97. He says
Access2000 and newer have higher ceilings before this limitaion is
reached!


Access 97 was release with a table handles limit of 1024. Service
Release 1 doubled that. So far as I know, all subsequent versions of
Access maintain that limit.

I can't find anything at all about table handles in the MS Knowledge
Base or through normal Googling. If you go to Google Groups and
search for "table handles" group:comp.databases.ms-access the second
page of results starts getting you to posts by someone other than me
(sorry!). MichKa responds in a number of threads, and I'm pretty
certain he was the one I learned this from.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc


Nov 12 '05 #41

P: n/a
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
As I menioned on another thread, the numbe of table handles does
not refer to different tables/queries/databases opened, but the
number of times objects are being opened, in total -- thus if the
same table has to be opened 30 different ways then that adds 30 to
the list, etc.


What's the lifetime of the limitation? Surely a table handle once
used up is not unavailable for the entire Access session? If that
were so, you could quite easily use up all of them by using a domain
aggregate function as a return value in the rows of a query.

I'm sure my apps open many times 2048 tables over the course of a
session.

Is it simultaneous, consecutive, or something in between?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #42

P: n/a
This does not explain what I observed though. After reading through your
previous post and David's posts, I "reengineered" how my report was getting its
data with the net effect of reducing the count of table handles and the message
about not being able to open any more databases appeared sooner in processing
the report. The discerning thing that ocurred is that I increased the calls for
data to the same table although the count of table handles decreased. Thus I
conclude that there is a limit to the number of calls to the same source of data
as well as a limit to the count of table handles.

Steve
"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
As I menioned on another thread, the numbe of table handles does not refer
to different tables/queries/databases opened, but the number of times
objects are being opened, in total -- thus if the same table has to be
opened 30 different ways then that adds 30 to the list, etc.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in message
news:QS*****************@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
David,

Solved my problem and thought you might be interested!

I began tinkering with everything comprising my report with the intent of
reducing "table handles". After reducing the number of queries (I did not

have
any domain functions) I found the message about loading databases actually
ocurred sooner. This was the first clue that the count of "table handles"

was
not my problem. I then converted the original database to AccessXP(2000

mode)
thinking from what you said here that the problem would go away because

the
limit of "table handles" should be double that of Access97. The problem
remained! I was now pretty convinced that the count of "table handles" was

not
the problem in my report but I now wondered what caused the problem to get
apparently worse when I reduced the number of queries. After close

examination I
determined that although I had reduced the number of queries, I had

increased
the number of times I was calling for data from a specific table. So I

went back
to the drawing board and reduced the number of calls to that table. I then

ran
the report and voila; the message about not being able to load any more

databses
did not appear. Apparently, related to "table handles", there is a

limitation as
to the number of calls to a specific table (and I assume query too) that

can be
made. Unfortunately, I did not count up how many calls to the table I was

making
originally or keep track of how many calls I removed before the report

worked.

Once again, thanks for all the time you spent with me on this thread - I

learned
a lot from you!

Steve
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.74...
"PC Datasheet" <sp**@nospam.spam> wrote in
news:iV*****************@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net:

> According to David this is a problem in Access97. He says
> Access2000 and newer have higher ceilings before this limitaion is
> reached!

Access 97 was release with a table handles limit of 1024. Service
Release 1 doubled that. So far as I know, all subsequent versions of
Access maintain that limit.

I can't find anything at all about table handles in the MS Knowledge
Base or through normal Googling. If you go to Google Groups and
search for "table handles" group:comp.databases.ms-access the second
page of results starts getting you to posts by someone other than me
(sorry!). MichKa responds in a number of threads, and I'm pretty
certain he was the one I learned this from.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc



Nov 12 '05 #43

P: n/a
I concur with what you are apparently thinking. The lifetime of the limitation
is only for all open forms and reports and any procedures that have not
completed at any point in time. When I read your post here I became curious so I
opened and closed my report (after the problem was fixed) five consecutive times
within the same session and did not experience any problem. I am confident that
if the lifetime of the limitation was in fact the entire Access session, my
report would have crashed before being opened five times.

Steve
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.86...
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
As I menioned on another thread, the numbe of table handles does
not refer to different tables/queries/databases opened, but the
number of times objects are being opened, in total -- thus if the
same table has to be opened 30 different ways then that adds 30 to
the list, etc.


What's the lifetime of the limitation? Surely a table handle once
used up is not unavailable for the entire Access session? If that
were so, you could quite easily use up all of them by using a domain
aggregate function as a return value in the rows of a query.

I'm sure my apps open many times 2048 tables over the course of a
session.

Is it simultaneous, consecutive, or something in between?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 12 '05 #44

P: n/a
"Mark" <mm*****@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:5O*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
I concur with what you are apparently thinking. The lifetime of
the limitation is only for all open forms and reports and any
procedures that have not completed at any point in time. When I
read your post here I became curious so I opened and closed my
report (after the problem was fixed) five consecutive times within
the same session and did not experience any problem. I am
confident that if the lifetime of the limitation was in fact the
entire Access session, my report would have crashed before being
opened five times.


What I'm not getting is how your report could possibly have been
using up 2048 of anything. It didn't sound all that complicated to
me!

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #45

P: n/a
"Mark" <mm*****@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:ZF*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
This does not explain what I observed though. After reading
through your previous post and David's posts, I "reengineered" how
my report was getting its data with the net effect of reducing the
count of table handles and the message about not being able to
open any more databases appeared sooner in processing the report.
The discerning thing that ocurred is that I increased the calls
for data to the same table although the count of table handles
decreased. Thus I conclude that there is a limit to the number of
calls to the same source of data as well as a limit to the count
of table handles.


This is extremely interesting. I hope Michael has some light to
throw on the situation.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #46

P: n/a
Its simultaneous. but reports have to open a lot to support the SVT views
that they require.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.86...
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
As I menioned on another thread, the numbe of table handles does
not refer to different tables/queries/databases opened, but the
number of times objects are being opened, in total -- thus if the
same table has to be opened 30 different ways then that adds 30 to
the list, etc.


What's the lifetime of the limitation? Surely a table handle once
used up is not unavailable for the entire Access session? If that
were so, you could quite easily use up all of them by using a domain
aggregate function as a return value in the rows of a query.

I'm sure my apps open many times 2048 tables over the course of a
session.

Is it simultaneous, consecutive, or something in between?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 12 '05 #47

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.