DB size?

[Rich]

Does anyone know if Access XP has all the macro functions?

are you thinking of an upgrade?

 

[Mike375]

are you thinking of an upgrade?

We are considering getting Office XP, maybe in a couple of months or so when some business issues drop off. We have all new computers that have Windows XP and my business partner and I figure that if we got near 10 years from 95 then XP would see us out

I do know (at least with parts of this data base) that conversion to Access 2000 is much better then to Access 97 so who knows with XP.

Mike

 

[Rich]

I do know (at least with parts of this data base) that conversion to Access 2000 is much better then to Access 97 so who knows with XP.

Mike

That suprises me since a2k was one of the most bug ridden versions ever

 

[Mike375]

That suprises me since a2k was one of the most bug ridden versions ever

I was just thinking that the reason my have been that we "converting" to A 97 whereas with A2000 we imported into a blank A2000 mdb. Only part of the data base was involved but it did not contain quite a variety of stuff from the main data base

Importing forms won't work on A95 when it is on XP. There are 3 bugs, at least for me and importing forms is the one I can't get around.

 

[Mike375]

I wasn't going to contribute any more to this insanity but I was reading this month's issue of Access Advisor and I couldn't resist.
Program Responsibly

Pat,

From your posted article:

Ultimately, it takes much less time to properly and consistently name objects, apply relationships, and structure code behind forms and reports than it does to figure out how a poorly built database is constructed. I'm sure you can spend as much time figuring out a badly constructed application as building it in the first place.

So in light of that consider the following:

My data base to day works and does all that is required.

The methods used to make the data base between 1996 and now are in the past. What is done is done.

If I was to adopt some or all of the various changes suggested the data base would become even messier as I would not learn enough about the coding and it would go through a long period of being half and half. If I can quickly learn all the coding to run a data base like this and learn quickly then it must be very easy to become a professional Access developer.

As your posted article says it is easier for the developer to make the data base from scratch than try and fix. So if the professional developer has to write up the data base rather than fix the data base then what chance would an amateur such as myself have of "fixing" it, especially given time restraints.

As to the data base "crashing" I still have not seen that explained except for the few points Mile O Phile made.

If for some reason in the future it becomes necessary to have something added but it can't be done because of the data base structure, then I am in the hands of the professional developer and according to your posted article he will make it from the beginning.

If there was any chance of the professional developer "fixing" it then the chances would be greatly reduced if I had gone in full steam trying to fix it myself.

Now considering all of that and the fact that you and some others pointed out my data base was a piece of crap what is the solution, bearing in mind I am in the business of selling insurance not Access development. Just how much time would I need away from the insurance business to:

1) Learn all that was necessary to make the data base the way you would make it and

2) How long once I had all this new found knowledge would it take to either remake it from scratch or fix it.

Mike

 

[Franknstuff]

Slowly getting there.

Thanks KKilFoil for your DB count. Looks like I'm going to be around the same size. So cool!

 

[ozlander]

but ... but ...

Sorry, everyone ... but I cannot help this reply (I tried to resist ... but ... but), especially after 134 relpies and 1685 views ... ... "each to their own" ... if it works then ... so be it (and I'll learn the new way .. because I have too ... but... but... I will recall this thread) ... go mike...go mike, go mike... I really appreciated the differences ... isn't that what being an individual means ... and yep, I will learn to code... at the same time I really love differences. Plus, an additional bit (I have no idea where to post it ... but ... but ... but ), this is a great forum... I have learnt heaps...I don't know much... yet... but ... but... but... give me time, pls and everyone is appreciated ... ty mike and all

Regards
Oz

 

[Mile-O]

Thanks KKilFoil for your DB count. Looks like I'm going to be around the same size. So cool!

Out of interest, what does it matter how your database compares to others? They are modelling something completely different to you and therefore may require more or less objects to achieve this.

 

[Pauldohert]

From Pats Access Adviser Article -

"Users can't judge the quality of the applications we build" -- eh - who can then?

If its well structured with nice clean code but doesn't work the user will say its C***, they wont use it and won't pay for it, and they are correct!!

At least Mike has happy users and earns some pocket money!!!

If it works - it works. But everything can eventually be done better - not just Mikes stuff.

 

[Mile-O]

"Users can't judge the quality of the applications we build" -- eh - who can then?

Users - at least in my experience - are generally diabolical at using computers and so they're quite happy if they click something and it does what they want.

I'd say an independant and experienced eye/mind is qualified to judge.

 

[Franknstuff]

Ok

I wasn't sure how envolved this DB venture was going to be, so I asked what is a Average DB size? When Mike answered 3000 tables I was having doubts about continuing. Then Pat gave me a nice average of her DB's then things starting to look better and when KKilFoil gave about the same general answer as Pat. Well, it doesn't seem like it's going to be so bad? It's nice that where on the original question. (Sorry Mike)

 

[Rich]

If it works - it works. But everything can eventually be done better - not just Mikes stuff.

As they say, if a job's worth doing it's worth doing right

 

[Cosmos75]

From Pats Access Adviser Article

As in Pat Hartman?

What article is that? Got a link?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found it here.

 

[Mike375]

As they say, if a job's worth doing it's worth doing right

And that is basically what I have been saying throughout this thread. My business is the business of selling insurance, not making data bases.

My data bases does not need to "look right" behind the scenes. It simply needs to work and work to the extent that it does not interfere with my insurance business and that is something it achieves.

Just an hour ago I changed a couple of labels to onClick for Mile O Phile's code for changing record source. However, there has been no change. A click in either case achieves a record source change. But it took time to make the change, only minutes to be sure, but you know what I mean. However, the code is not really as good because with the macro I can change the query in the macro for record source change without closing down the data base. I asssume if the code was in a module then I could do the same thing, but then I would need to learn how to do that and at the end a "click" produces the same result, a change in the record source.

Mike

 

[MadMaxx]

Mine has well over 2000 macros, about 700 forms, 1200 queries and 300 tables.

Compacted and with records it is around 90 mb. Probably a 1/3rd of the data base is no longer used. This in Access 95.

So you have a way to go

Mike

Wouldn't you think it migh be better to do the program over in C++ ov VB. Just my opinion but that seems to be an awful lot of forms and such to be trusting to one Access Database.

 

[Pauldohert]

As they say, if a job's worth doing it's worth doing right

I would say its worth doing well - but still - kind of proves the point - there are many ways of doing things - not one right way!

Which do you disagree with either "if it works it works" - I suppose the argument is - If if works it doesn't work??
You may be able to tag a "but" on the end but thats it.

Or everyone can eventually improve themselves? I would find it extremely arrogant for someone to imply their own work couldn't be eventually be improved upon!

Its called progress and learning -- if thats not for you Rich you must be at your limitations already.

I will support Mike here - he has a life to lead, a business to run , friends and family to see - and presumably some sport to be watching - he hasn't the time or resources to improve everything he could undoubtably improve, - if it works - it works!

I do get the feeling if someone asked the question "how do I fix so and so problem and my Ford Fiesta" The answer would come back why did you have a ford? You should have a Mercedes! Not very helpful!

The problems called economics and it applies to everyone!

 

[Pauldohert]

Wouldn't you think it migh be better to do the program over in C++ ov VB. Just my opinion but that seems to be an awful lot of forms and such to be trusting to one Access Database.

We have already established the fact that 1/3 of it isn't used and has 20 forms etc where there is the need for one. So times everything by 1/30 and its size looks fine for access.

 

[Rich]

Its called progress and learning -- if thats not for you Rich you must be at your limitations already.

I will support Mike here - he has a life to lead, a business to run , friends and family to see - and presumably some sport to be watching - he hasn't the time or resources to improve everything he could undoubtably improve, - if it works - it works!

I'm both astonished and quite frankly insulted by the remark.
I run my own business too which has nothing to do with databases or even computing. I still come here because I still want to learn even though my own db does what I want. Those with the right attitude are willing to learn until the day they die, that's called progress! I started at roughly the same time as Mike with the same limitations you attribute to just Mike, oddly.

 

[KenHigg]

Should that be: Multiply by 2/3 ?

4200 * (2/3) = 2800 = Still too big.

 

[Pauldohert]

Should that be: Multiply by 2/3 ?

4200 * (2/3) = 2800 = Still too big.

No 2/3 is the size with all the unused stuff taken out, and 1/20 whats left is actually needed as the rest of this thread deals with.

Thats 1/30 - ( i hope)