To Split or Not to Split (1 Viewer)

SAK · Aug 31, 2003

that is the question. Rhetorical or otherwise.

I've read a bit on Access here and there and see the recommendation to split a database. One quote was that this was something that all "serious" developers recommend.

I see the purpose in a server/client, multiple user based scenario, but on a stand alone application, on a single machine, with a single user at at time, I would be interested in hearing the pros and cons of splitting. And other pertinent comments.

Jack Cowley · Aug 31, 2003

If you make modifications to forms, add reports, new queries, etc. how will you add these modifications to the users copy of the program without their tables and all the data that has been added since you first delivered the program? With a split db you just deliver a frontend and the user never skips a beat...

hth,
Jack

SAK · Aug 31, 2003

Now there's an angle.

Up until now, my apps have been for my own use and then for my crews use. The crews use was focused on getting them to input their work data, then email the data back to me via Excel sheets for me to import and compile otherwise. Thus, their data was viable from month to month as far as they are concerned.

However, I have some other requests from co-workers for custom apps and I see how splitting would fit those as you explained. These apps will call for the folks to keep and process their own data on an ongoing basis.

So I see and understand your point. Much appreciated.

Having not yet run a database split routine yet, I assume then that a newly updated FE is happily portable all by it's lonesome, and assuming the links don't get screwed up, will seamlessly join with with the BE sitting elsewhere. Correct?

pono1 · Aug 31, 2003

I assume then that a newly updated FE is happily portable all by it's lonesome, and assuming the links don't get screwed up, will seamlessly join with with the BE sitting elsewhere. Correct?

Correct -- as long as everyone can see the backend from where they're sitting and their user accounts have been assigned appropriate permissions to the backend folder. So if you are all working on the same LAN, connecting to the same server, things are fine. When the FE is copied it to a PC that is not on the LAN, things are not fine.

Regards,
Tim

SAK · Aug 31, 2003

Thanks for the perspective Tim.

That opens another point of view then. The outfit I work for, has a statewide network. Office staff revel in T1 connections, but remote users like myself drag through extremely slow and inefficient dialups to get into that system. It's outrageous.

That being said...

Theoretically I could place a FE and BE set up through the network but that is agonizingly slow, not to mention that the remote users are shut out of the system anyway until (1000s of us I hear) everybody gets their patches installed after the recent worm fiascos.

Realisitically, since I am by the main office frequently enough it would be easy to take a FE in via CD and place the update on the system there. (I need to do tutorials for the user anyway)

So what problems would manifest themselves by manually installing a FE as above? If it's just broken links, while a pain, easily fixable from what I have experienced in other situations. Or is there something else?

I appreciate the help.

Jack Cowley · Aug 31, 2003

Speed is the problem, obviously, if you have a slow network, but other than that you can have the BE on the server. I would put the FE's on the users machine and then link to the server. If each division (or whatever) has an intranet then the BE can be placed on that server as it may be faster for the individual locataion. You can zip the FE and place it on the server, along with the tutorial, and have the users download it to their machines. Then they can unzip and use the tutorial and db....

hth,
Jack

pono1 · Sep 1, 2003

One other caveat: Sometimes a split A2K and A2002 DB will suddenly slow down when loading heavy forms, esp those with a tab control. Here's the best source I've found on this topic.

Regards,
Tim

Autoeng · Sep 1, 2003

SAK:

In your situation, unless everyone needs extremely "live" data I would consider a replicated db. In that situation users who have slow access download the data to their pc (sometimes having to download a new FE) and after modifying or adding data only upload the newest data to the system so that when others download they get the latest data.

SAK · Sep 1, 2003

Jack, thanks for the perspective and Tim, thanks for that resource. I looked it over and new light was shed on the splitting topic for me.

I think I will experiment with the splitting then. When our network and intranet gets up and running again, (my but gov't is efficient isn't it?), I am going to suffer through my slow connection speed by placing the BE on the server and the FE on that local machine in the office to see how it goes.

I will try to manage the FE from my remote location via intranet, but just for the heck of it, I will try an update of the FE via a CD install to see what happens to the links.

It'll be fun to mess around with anyway.

Jack Cowley · Sep 1, 2003

You are welcome and good luck with your project, Government or not....

Jack

To Split or Not to Split (1 Viewer)

SAK

Registered User.

Jack Cowley

Registered User.

SAK

Registered User.

pono1

Registered User.

SAK

Registered User.

Jack Cowley

Registered User.

pono1

Registered User.

Autoeng

Why me?

SAK

Registered User.

Jack Cowley

Registered User.

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread