Linking tables multiple times

[JeroenNL]

Hi all,

Here's the situation: I have a bunch of Excel sheets and textfiles I need to link to. I created an Access DB which links to these files. This DB is my backend DB and it only contains linked tables. I then create a frontend DB in which I link to all tables in the backend DB. I do this by importing (!) all tables from the backend. Question: can I expect errors in this setup?


Bye,
Jeroen

A 3d level editor in Delphi

http://www.gamefortress.com/~delgine

 

[MichaelRed]

I THINK the question is "moot". Copying a "LINK"ed Table actually only copies the Link, so creating the seperate back end is a more-or-less exercise in showing that it is POSSIBLE to do so, saving approximatly nothing. As long as the "Link" is properly formed it should reflect the propper location and content of the (original) source regardless of being a copy.


Of course, it is possible to create the LINK itself using different "address" modes, and these can be problematic unless you use URL addressing.




MichaelRed
m.red@att.net

Searching for employment in all the wrong places

 

[JeroenNL]

Thanks MichaelRed. I'm wondering though: what does "moot" mean?

The reason why I have this backend DB is because it would be the only place in which I have to maintain my Link info. This backend DB has a macro which contains all TransferDatabase / TransferSpreadsheet / TransferTextfile actions. Executing this macro results in the backend DB having all linked tables. I also have several other DB's which import all linked tables from the backend. That means that these other DB's (4 of them) also have all linked tables.

However, now I am faced with a problem. I can't delete a few of these linked tables anymore. Not in the backend DB and not in the other DB's as well. That's why I'm wondering if this is a good approach.

Can you elaborate on different address modes? Thanks.

Bye,
Jeroen

A 3d level editor in Delphi

http://www.gamefortress.com/~delgine

 

[MichaelRed]

"moot" mean (more-or-less) not of interest or importance. e.g To ask wheather I am communicating with you is a moot question as the answer is quite obvious.

Re 'addressing" modes, the ubiquitous {F1} is perhaps a better source of info. I prefer the use of "URL" addressing, as it designates the target with a reference to the machine name as well as the (source machine) drive and path, Relative addressing supplies a path which is relative to the DEST system and -in my experience- a bit more prone error arising from changes. Drive mapping is designating a drive and path of a (remote?) machine as a local drive, which -in my experience is the most troublesome.



MichaelRed
m.red@att.net

Searching for employment in all the wrong places

 

[Norris68]

A little note: If you are going to use URL-based (or rather UNC - Universal Naming Convention) links, make sure to add them to your network neighborhood. On mapped drives (e.g. F:, G and nethood UNC paths (e.g. \\Servername\Sharename) the NT security information is cached by the O/S. Other UNCs will need to authenticate each time you communicate with the server, thereby reducing performance.