I've converted an Access 97 database to Access 2003 and the performance when using Select Count is dreadful. I've had to revert to FindFirst which is much much faster.
I don't understand this because in Access 97 it was just the opposite. I'm holding data in a local table on the front-end and before I write each record to the back-end (on the server) I was using Select Count to determine if a record already existed. If it did I asked the user if they wanted to replace the current record. If the select Count returned zero I just wrote a new record.
That worked fine in Access 97 and was 7 times faster than FindFirst but in Access 2003 Select Count is dreadfully slow and reverting to FindFirst has restored the speed.
Can anyone explain why Select Count should be so much slower than FindFirst which I always understood should be avoided like the plague!
Thanks.
I don't understand this because in Access 97 it was just the opposite. I'm holding data in a local table on the front-end and before I write each record to the back-end (on the server) I was using Select Count to determine if a record already existed. If it did I asked the user if they wanted to replace the current record. If the select Count returned zero I just wrote a new record.
That worked fine in Access 97 and was 7 times faster than FindFirst but in Access 2003 Select Count is dreadfully slow and reverting to FindFirst has restored the speed.
Can anyone explain why Select Count should be so much slower than FindFirst which I always understood should be avoided like the plague!
Thanks.