Database in an Inconsistent State (1 Viewer)

I use a split database that is also used by 5 other colleagues. Every now and again we get an error message stating that the database is in and “inconsistent state”, and I can’t work out why?

All I can do to resolve the issue is run a small script :- "X:\ Current\School Database.accdb" /repair, though this is only a temporary fix, as the database always goes in an inconsistent state a few days later.

Thanks for your help.

Does each user run their own copy of frontend installed on their computer?

Welcome to AWF

Unfortunately this may be due to a known issue that has not been fixed by MS

For more info & a work-round, see https://blog.fmsinc.com/microsoft-access-database-inconsistent-state/ and https://www.devhut.net/2018/06/13/access-bug-database-is-in-an-unrecognized-format/

You may also find that decompiling will help alleviate the issue

Also are the users using a wireless network or are they connected to the back end via a hardwired network?

@June7, yes, each user hsa their own frontend installed on their machines.

@CJ_London, each user is using a hardwire university network.

The main database and backend data are all in a shaired networked area.

Many thanks.

If you have multiple copies of the front end and all are on a hardwired network, then the two biggest reasons for corruption just went away. But there are a couple of others to consider.

For instance: Are all of your queries (direct and implied) to the back end set up for either optimistic locking or no locking? If you have even one "pessimistic locking" query you have an opening for issues to creep in. If you were unsure, "implied queries" exist in forms and reports through their .Recordsource properties, and on certain controls through their .RowSource properties.

Are all of the front ends set up to use non-exclusive opening? You get to this setting from the Access File ribbon, click Options, select Current Database, and then it is in that extensive list of things you could set.

If all else fails, I would look again at Colin's suggestion.

- Richard