By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,660 Members | 1,071 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,660 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Why does splitting a mdb make it slower?

P: n/a
I have an A97 application that is NOT split on a network. It is used by
15+ folks continually. It is quick and fast.

I split it several years ago and had to merge it together again after
the folks rebelled at the slow speed resulting from the split.

I have to bite the bullet and split it now. Of course, it is much
slower. In one form that opens as a continous form, the data looks like
it is being repainted as it displays...you can see each row being
created quickly. When not split, the entire page is presented in one blink.

I created a table on the backend called KeepOpen. I created a form
called KeepOpen that opens when the app does. This form links to the
linked table. That didn't make much difference. I created an AutoExec
macro that runs a function that opens the the table KeepOpen. Not much
difference.

My forms now take about 5 seconds more to open. I would think that if I
had a frontend on the hard drive and the backend on the network things
would be faster than having an MDB containing a front/backend on the
network.

The network OS my app is Novell. Is it possible that Novell is a
superior operating system to Microsoft and can fetch files and data and
send everything thru the network faster than Microsoft can fetch stuff
on a hard drive?

Is there anything you are aware of that I can do to improve the speed
after splitting the database? Also, I will be porting this A2003. Does
A2003 have better split database management compared to A97?
Jul 18 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
3 Replies


P: n/a
salad <oi*@vinegar.comwrote:
>I have an A97 application that is NOT split on a network. It is used by
15+ folks continually. It is quick and fast.

I split it several years ago and had to merge it together again after
the folks rebelled at the slow speed resulting from the split.
Yes, that was my experience as well.
>I have to bite the bullet and split it now. Of course, it is much
slower. In one form that opens as a continous form, the data looks like
it is being repainted as it displays...you can see each row being
created quickly. When not split, the entire page is presented in one blink.

I created a table on the backend called KeepOpen. I created a form
called KeepOpen that opens when the app does. This form links to the
linked table. That didn't make much difference. I created an AutoExec
macro that runs a function that opens the the table KeepOpen. Not much
difference.
Interesting. That should've made a substantial difference.
>My forms now take about 5 seconds more to open. I would think that if I
had a frontend on the hard drive and the backend on the network things
would be faster than having an MDB containing a front/backend on the
network.
No, the time spent downloading the queries, forms and reports to the memory of the
workstation from the server doesn't appear to be significant. A client did that with
a Citrix setup and it worked quite well.
>The network OS my app is Novell. Is it possible that Novell is a
superior operating system to Microsoft and can fetch files and data and
send everything thru the network faster than Microsoft can fetch stuff
on a hard drive?
No. A network cable is always a lot slower than a local hard drive. (Of course
someone is going to jump in and mention how slow a 20 year old 10 Mb (not Gb) hard
drive is but you get the idea.)

Also it's my understanding that MS did a great deal of work in Win 2003 Server to get
it as fast as Novell as that was one area in which they were getting beat up on.
>Is there anything you are aware of that I can do to improve the speed
after splitting the database?
See the Access Performance FAQ page at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performancefaq.htm

Obviously sub datasheet Name property and Track name AutoCorrect won't be a
difference in A97 but will affect you later.

I'm wondering how many folders down on the server is the MDB? Can you try moving it
to one folder below the root. I don't know if Novell would do a better job here than
Microsoft.

Are you reasonably up to date with the Novell clients?
>Also, I will be porting this A2003. Does
A2003 have better split database management compared to A97?
No. There are a few more things you have to concern yourself in A2000 and newer.

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
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Jul 18 '07 #2

P: n/a
Tony Toews [MVP] wrote:
salad <oi*@vinegar.comwrote:
>>I have an A97 application that is NOT split on a network. It is used by
15+ folks continually. It is quick and fast.

I split it several years ago and had to merge it together again after
the folks rebelled at the slow speed resulting from the split.

Yes, that was my experience as well.
Hi Tony. I'm betting you were able to fix it.
>>I have to bite the bullet and split it now. Of course, it is much
slower. In one form that opens as a continous form, the data looks like
it is being repainted as it displays...you can see each row being
created quickly. When not split, the entire page is presented in one blink.

I created a table on the backend called KeepOpen. I created a form
called KeepOpen that opens when the app does. This form links to the
linked table. That didn't make much difference. I created an AutoExec
macro that runs a function that opens the the table KeepOpen. Not much
difference.

Interesting. That should've made a substantial difference.
That's what I thought. From A97 help it states "You can greatly enhance
performance when opening the main database and opening tables and forms,
by forcing the linked database to remain open."
>>My forms now take about 5 seconds more to open. I would think that if I
had a frontend on the hard drive and the backend on the network things
would be faster than having an MDB containing a front/backend on the
network.

No, the time spent downloading the queries, forms and reports to the memory of the
workstation from the server doesn't appear to be significant. A client did that with
a Citrix setup and it worked quite well.
That's interesting. I would have thought that would have added
significant overhead.
>>The network OS my app is Novell. Is it possible that Novell is a
superior operating system to Microsoft and can fetch files and data and
send everything thru the network faster than Microsoft can fetch stuff
on a hard drive?

No. A network cable is always a lot slower than a local hard drive. (Of course
someone is going to jump in and mention how slow a 20 year old 10 Mb (not Gb) hard
drive is but you get the idea.)
Yes. I do. It was an attempt at humor.
>
Also it's my understanding that MS did a great deal of work in Win 2003 Server to get
it as fast as Novell as that was one area in which they were getting beat up on.
>>Is there anything you are aware of that I can do to improve the speed
after splitting the database?

See the Access Performance FAQ page at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performancefaq.htm

Obviously sub datasheet Name property and Track name AutoCorrect won't be a
difference in A97 but will affect you later.

I'm wondering how many folders down on the server is the MDB? Can you try moving it
to one folder below the root. I don't know if Novell would do a better job here than
Microsoft.
My app is on J:. I am one level down from J:. Ex: J:\Test\MyApp.MDB.

The folder name is 8 characters in length.

My App name is 10 characters in length. My BE is 12 characters in
length...I added BE to the app name for the backend.

Hmmmm...I'll have to check the naming scheme. That would be funny if
the fix to my problem is changing my 12 char backend name to a shorter name.
Are you reasonably up to date with the Novell clients?
My client uses an ex-Novell systems programmer to keep up to date as far
as Groupwise. My client is pretty fanatical about keeping up to date on
Novell...but I will ask him.
>>Also, I will be porting this A2003. Does
A2003 have better split database management compared to A97?

No. There are a few more things you have to concern yourself in A2000 and newer.
Could you provide some further info regarding the above statement? Or
links?
>
Tony
I'll keep you posted on this. Thanks much
Jul 18 '07 #3

P: n/a
salad <oi*@vinegar.comwrote:
>>>I split it several years ago and had to merge it together again after
the folks rebelled at the slow speed resulting from the split.

Yes, that was my experience as well.

Hi Tony. I'm betting you were able to fix it.
Mostly. Not entirely though. Split was still sluggish compared to unsplit.
>No, the time spent downloading the queries, forms and reports to the memory of the
workstation from the server doesn't appear to be significant. A client did that with
a Citrix setup and it worked quite well.

That's interesting. I would have thought that would have added
significant overhead.
Likewise. But when you take a look at how much memory Access consumes in Task Mgr
once you've opened an MDB well who knows what's all going on there.

>>>The network OS my app is Novell. Is it possible that Novell is a
superior operating system to Microsoft and can fetch files and data and
send everything thru the network faster than Microsoft can fetch stuff
on a hard drive?

No. A network cable is always a lot slower than a local hard drive. (Of course
someone is going to jump in and mention how slow a 20 year old 10 Mb (not Gb) hard
drive is but you get the idea.)

Yes. I do. It was an attempt at humor.
Oops, sorry.
>See the Access Performance FAQ page at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performancefaq.htm
>>>Also, I will be porting this A2003. Does
A2003 have better split database management compared to A97?

No. There are a few more things you have to concern yourself in A2000 and newer.

Could you provide some further info regarding the above statement? Or
links?
Specifically the name autocorrect and and the subdatasheets setttings as mentioned at
the 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
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Jul 18 '07 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.