Speed of MDE Database

[dpimental]

I have a frontend and backend database. I converted the frontend to an mde file, and it seems slower than the original mdb frontend database.

Any idea why that would be? Wouldn't it be faster, not slower?

David Pimental
(US, Oh)

 

[TheAceMan1]

How are ya dpimental . . .

Hard to say at this point, however have a look here . . . things to consider before you convert to MDE:

Making Access Faster - 168 Tips to Speed Up Your Apps!

Performance tips

See Ya! . . . . . .

Be sure to see FAQ219-2884:

 

[MajP]

Here are some more tips:

http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performancefaq.htm

If this db is in A2K I can tell you the first three listed tips will make a huge difference. What version are you running?

 

[dpimental]

I am using Access 2000. And I went to a frontend - backend design and converted to mde for the frontend all at the same time.

So, I can't say the slow down is a result of the mde conversion. It could be due to using linked tables (although the database where the tables are located, is in the same directory on a shared network drive). Or the slow down could be due to both.

I will look at those tips and see if they increase my db's speed.

Thanks

David Pimental
(US, Oh)

 

[MajP]

Yes those first three tips are critical for A2K FE/BE design. The Auto Correct name changes alone will bring the DB to a screeching halt.

 

[dpimental]

I found that Track name AutoCorrect is off.
I seem to have a persistent connection, so that is not an issue.

And I can't find where to change the subdatasheet name property? Where is that located?

I will look at the rest of the notes.

David Pimental
(US, Oh)

 

[dpimental]

What about the advanced tab in the tools --> options menu?

What about DDE Operations, Command Line Arguments (Refresh Interval, ODBC Refresh Interval), Default Open Mode (shared / exclusive), Record Locking (currently I have no locks, but I have checked the open database using record level locking?

It seems this tab would affect speed and efficiency?

David Pimental
(US, Oh)

 

[MajP]

Under table properties. I think in design view, right click, select "properties".
These are the big three in my past experience. However, read the articles because there is a lot more tips. The things you mentioned on the advance tab should have little effect.
Before the split was the database on your local machine or was it located on the server? Obviously now you are pulling across the network so if you were not before it will be slower. Also verify your front end is on a local computer. As you probably know the big reason to split is to put all forms, code, reports on local machines and the data on the network. Then you only pull data across the network not these other objects.

 

[dpimental]

I work at a company that does everything on a network shared drive.

The original database was on a network drive. both the frontend and backend are on a network shared drive. They are in the same folder.

I found the subdatasheet name and have reset it to none on all my tables. I will let you know if that changes the speed.

David Pimental
(US, Oh)

 

[dpimental]

Changing the subdatasheet name to none did not increase the speed of the application.

David Pimental
(US, Oh)

 

[MajP]

If the front end is on the network your defeating a lot of the reason for having a split DB. The FE should be local so that all of that overhead is not being pulled across the network. Then distribute the FE as needed. As you update the front end there are some FAQs on this site to ensure the users have the most current FE.

 

[dpimental]

In that environment, would you suggest that I still split the tables off into their own db or not?

David Pimental
(US, Oh)

 

[MajP]

Yes. Tables on the network and users have FE on local machine. That is the traditional approach. If you are distributing this to other users make sure the linked tables are put in like
\\servername\folder\dbname.mdb
not like
F:\folder\dbname.mdb

The link table manager automatically chooses the latter, and you need to manually type it in. Different users map their drives differently.

Try it in this configuration and see if things speed up.