MDE / MDB Split Databases best way to go?

[John Google]

Hi,

I've been asked to amend an Access 2002 DB that has been used by users
using the MDE version. I have, what seems to be the original MDB
version containing all the front end stuff but, by now, the tables are
way out of date.

They want me to make some changes to the database and keep their
current data..

My idea to get round this problem was to split both the MDB (out of
date) and MDE (up to date) version of the databases so that the tables
are linking to the back end tables.

I would then change the links in the MDB DB to use the MDE back end
database (so they access the most up to date data).

I then make my changes to the MDB DB (including table changes, forms,
reports etc).

After I have made my changes I can then create a new MDE DB which is
linked to the same back end data.

Will this work OK?

Is there anyway to unsplit the data so my final database is a single
MDE file rather than an MDE file and a back end MDB file?

[John Google]

The reason I would like to do this (unsplit the data) is that the DB
is accesses from various sites via shared resources and, to make it
easier, I would like to have it all in one DB.

[Arno R]

"John Google" <Jo**********@googlemail.comschreef in bericht news:93**********************************@a22g2000 hsc.googlegroups.com...

The reason I would like to do this (unsplit the data) is that the DB
is accesses from various sites via shared resources and, to make it
easier, I would like to have it all in one DB.

Bad idea IMO.

One of the main advantages of using a split db (FE-BE) is that you can easily make changes and send them an update...

Also it is my opinion (and best practice to prevent corruption) that...
--Only the BE should be used by all users.
--Each user should have his/hers own copy of the FE.

Arno R

[lyle]

On Apr 15, 4:56*pm, John Google <[e-mail]:

Hi,

I've been asked to amend an Access 2002 DB that has been used by users
using the MDE version. I have, what seems to be the original MDB
version containing all the front end stuff but, by now, the tables are
way out of date.

They want me to make some changes to the database and keep their
current data..

My idea to get round this problem was to split both the MDB (out of
date) and MDE (up to date) version of the databases so that the tables
are linking to the back end tables.

I would then change the links in the MDB DB to use the MDE back end
database (so they access the most up to date data).

I then make my changes to the MDB DB (including table changes, forms,
reports etc).

After I have made my changes I can then create a new MDE DB which is
linked to the same back end data.

Will this work OK?

Is there anyway to unsplit the data so my final database is a single
MDE file rather than an MDE file and a back end MDB file?

The database as it exists now is a single MDE containing both data
(the Tables) and the interface (the Forms, Reports) and the logic (the
code and queries)?

So each of the users does not have his or her own copy.

I bet there are regular contributors here who will have some advice on
how to achieve the greatest effectiveness and efficiency while
amending it. That advice, no doubt, will include suggestions about
front-end, back-end.
I've used SQL_Server as a back-end for several years, so I'll yield to
those who are more current.

[John Google]

On 15 Apr, 23:49, lyle <[e-mail]:

On Apr 15, 4:56*pm, John Google <[e-mail]:

Hi,

I've been asked to amend an Access 2002 DB that has been used by users
using the MDE version. I have, what seems to be the original MDB
version containing all the front end stuff but, by now, the tables are
way out of date.

They want me to make some changes to the database and keep their
current data..

My idea to get round this problem was to split both the MDB (out of
date) and MDE (up to date) version of the databases so that the tables
are linking to the back end tables.

I would then change the links in the MDB DB to use the MDE back end
database (so they access the most up to date data).

I then make my changes to the MDB DB (including table changes, forms,
reports etc).

After I have made my changes I can then create a new MDE DB which is
linked to the same back end data.

Will this work OK?

Is there anyway to unsplit the data so my final database is a single
MDE file rather than an MDE file and a back end MDB file?

The database as it exists now is a single MDE containing both data
(the Tables) and the interface (the Forms, Reports) and the logic (the
code and queries)?

So each of the users does not have his or her own copy.

I bet there are regular contributors here who will have some advice on
how to achieve the greatest effectiveness and efficiency while
amending it. That advice, no doubt, will include suggestions about
front-end, back-end.
I've used SQL_Server as a back-end for several years, so I'll yield to
those who are more current.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's correct.

The MDE file is on a shared drive. The users simply have a link on
their desktop to open the MDE file.

[John Google]

On 15 Apr, 23:01, "Arno R" <[e-mail]:

"John Google" <[e-mail] in berichtnews:93**********************************@a 22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

The reason I would like to do this (unsplit the data) is that the DB
is accesses from various sites via shared resources and, to make it
easier, I would like to have it all in one DB.

Bad idea IMO.

One of the main advantages of using a split db (FE-BE) is that you can easily make changes and send them an update...

Also it is my opinion (and best practice to prevent corruption) that...
--Only the BE should be used by all users.
--Each user should have his/hers own copy of the FE.

Arno R

Amo,

Do you mean that the back end should be on a shared drive but the MDE
file should be installed on each user's PC? At the moment the MDE file
is on a shared drive and each user has a link to it on their desktop.

If I split the database and have the MDE and the back end DB on the
shared drive, does this mean that there may be corruptions in the
files?

[Arno R]

"John Google" <Jo**********@googlemail.comschreef in bericht news:e6**********************************@59g2000h sb.googlegroups.com...

On 15 Apr, 23:01, "Arno R" <[e-mail]:

>"John Google" <[e-mail] in berichtnews:93**********************************@a 22g2000hsc.googlegroups..com...

The reason I would like to do this (unsplit the data) is that the DB
is accesses from various sites via shared resources and, to make it
easier, I would like to have it all in one DB.

Bad idea IMO.

One of the main advantages of using a split db (FE-BE) is that you can easily make changes and send them an update...

Also it is my opinion (and best practice to prevent corruption) that...
--Only the BE should be used by all users.
--Each user should have his/hers own copy of the FE.

Arno R

Amo,

Do you mean that the back end should be on a shared drive but the MDE
file should be installed on each user's PC?

Yes, That is what I mean indeed.

If I split the database and have the MDE and the back end DB on the
shared drive, does this mean that there may be corruptions in the
files?

When an Access database is used by more people simultaneausly then yes ther e is a greater risk.
Lots of warnings here in this group for that setup. Just Google this group for that.

For instance network issues can cause an Access app to fail and get corrupted.
It is better to have this problem on a single workstation.

I did have FE-corruption issues once in a while, and copying the FE from another workstation always solved the problem.

Arno R

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

John Google <Jo**********@googlemail.comwrote:

>Do you mean that the back end should be on a shared drive but the MDE
file should be installed on each user's PC? At the moment the MDE file
is on a shared drive and each user has a link to it on their desktop.

If I split the database and have the MDE and the back end DB on the
shared drive, does this mean that there may be corruptions in the
files?

Yes, what Arno said.

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/

[John Google]

On 17 Apr, 19:22, "Tony Toews [MVP]" <[e-mail]:

John Google <[e-mail]:

Do you mean that the back end should be on a shared drive but the MDE
file should be installed on each user's PC? At the moment the MDE file
is on a shared drive and each user has a link to it on their desktop.

If I split the database and have the MDE and the back end DB on the
shared drive, does this mean that there may be corruptions in the
files?

Yes, what Arno said.

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 athttp://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
* *Tony's Microsoft Access Blog -http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

Thanks Tony and Amo.