Compact and Close creates new database

[Esprit]

Hi all

I have 15 users using my Access 2003 (OS Server 2003) database. Out of the 15 (all of whom have exactly the same permissions), one user creates a new database everytime he opens and closes the database. I've tried giving him full access rights, put him into the Power User group etc, but this is still happening.

Any clue as to what is happening here?

Regards
Esprit

[NeoPa]

Can you explain a bit more clearly what happens when this user uses the database. From your description you would end up with 3 copies of the database every time he has a session.

[Ericks]

Hi all

I have 15 users using my Access 2003 (OS Server 2003) database. Out of the 15 (all of whom have exactly the same permissions), one user creates a new database everytime he opens and closes the database. I've tried giving him full access rights, put him into the Power User group etc, but this is still happening.

Any clue as to what is happening here?

Regards
Esprit

I encounter the same problem when one enters a new record to a (query) sub form by means of a pop up form. The record entered on this popup is not "linked" to anything, gets lost in the database and at that point, when compressing the database it creates a new database called db1, 2 or whatever. Turning off the auto compress function will not create a different database but you still have the problem of lost data.

[MMcCarthy]

The basic rule is Compact on Close will create a copy of the database if there are any other users with the application open at the time.

[MThomp]

We are having this same problem with all network databases. New database is created everytime the database is open and closed unless compact on close is disabled. Seems to possibly be tied into the Office 2003 SPS 9/17/2007 update.

Looking for anyone who has found the problem and/or identified the solution.

[MMcCarthy]

We are having this same problem with all network databases. New database is created everytime the database is open and closed unless compact on close is disabled. Seems to possibly be tied into the Office 2003 SPS 9/17/2007 update.

Looking for anyone who has found the problem and/or identified the solution.

Assuming you are using a backend/frontend application. Give all users their own copy of the frontend application. This way there is only one user of each frontend. As long as they all point to the same backend data it shouldn't be a problem.

[MThomp]

Assuming you are using a backend/frontend application. Give all users their own copy of the frontend application. This way there is only one user of each frontend. As long as they all point to the same backend data it shouldn't be a problem.

We are actually using a front end/back end. If you remove the compact on close from the front end, no problem (not necessary anyway). The backend is still used to reload data and unless you remove the compact on close, it appears that the compact and repair never completes. It creates a db1.mdb, moves everything in, but never renames and deletes the original. So you end up with db1.mdb, db2.mdb etc. And a non compacted database.

The short term solution is of course, to remove the automatic compact on close, do it manually on the hard drive and copy to the network. I am curious as to why this is only a problem on the network. And I am hoping for a more long term solution that does not rely on the person reloading to move the database down and compact it manually.

I am finding more of this issue on other forums, at this point I have narrowed the suspects down to one. The SP3 service pack. I guess we will have to wait for Microsoft to notice the complaints and come up with a fix.

[NeoPa]

I've always felt the compact on close option was so utterly ridiculous that I haven't used it.
Whoever came up with such an obviously flawed concept must have been Microsoft.
They only provided it to absolve themselves of the responsibility for providing on-the-fly compacting (Or any other useful solution). A Compact & Repair needs to be done when the database is unused. This has to be planned anyway, so there's no benefit I can see for having it run automatically (other than to the designers of the software when discussing responsibility for something corrupting or failing).