Let us appeal to Microsoft to increase size limit of ms access db file

[rommelgenlight]

1. MS Access has been increased from 1 to 2 gigabyte, so therefore Microsoft can upgrade or improve its size limit.

2. Other say that Microsoft want us to purchase other programming software that is why they did not increase much the size limit of the database. But it is also true that we also paid for MS Access product.

3. Others say that 2 gigabyte is already huge enough and moreover when can create many ms access database file as back-end and connect to its front-end. That is why there is no need to ask for more improvement. So if that is true, Microsoft should have not bothered increasing 1 gigabyte to 2 gigabyte size limit since we just have to create back-end and front-end.

4. Others say, we should learn other programming languages like SQL so we can make it as back-end. However, most especially to non-professional or non-formal graduates of programming course, it is hard for us to do that. That is why we stick to what we know.

5. Others say, it would be difficult for Microsoft to increase the size limit because doing so would have Microsoft to restructure the engineering of ms access. If that is true, how come from version 97, Microsoft had able to increase it to 2 gigabyte in 2000 version. It is worth to mention that Microsoft had made a huge change for MS Access 2007. Therefore, Microsoft has the capability to improve the size limit.

6. SQL maintains one db file that has very huge size limit. Why can't MS Access also have same capacity while programming does not pertain to DATA STORAGE ALONE. Programming is more geared towards CODING. This is what I believe because the data in the data store would be useless if it is not coded to present what we want to achieve.

This would appear like an appeal to all but I also think that this would appear as an eye opener information.

Kindly post your appeal to http://mymfe.microsoft.com/Office%202007/Feedback.aspx?formID=81

And please read at the bottom end of the paragraph of this site to vote so Microsoft will respond to our appeal. Thanks. http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...9a6-90b7f02280fb&cat=&lang=en&cr=US&sloc=&p=1

 

[Banana]

I have a database that can contain 4 million worth rows spread across tables in Access and it consumes only 220 MB.

I have difficulty seeing scenarios where it would be truly essential to have a >2 GB file support that wouldn't also require a migration to a RDBMS with a dedicated daemon to manage the data.

It's important to keep in mind about what Jet/ACE was ultimately designed for- a desktop storage engine that is easy to manage. For comparison, take a look at SQLite which is in many respects similar to Jet (no daemon, easy to configure/install and great at storing data).

Usually the migration is needed because we need increased concurrency, performance, and scalability, of which neither Jet and SQLite can do due to their design. As a single-user solution, either could actually be faster than any big boys because there's not as much overhead and everything is on single file.

I'm hard-pressed to think up of a database that's single-user *and* requiring more than 2 GB, outside of storing graphic files (of which there already exists several better solutions for that kind of work).

 

[rommelgenlight]

we have way for Microsoft to listen to us now.

 

[rommelgenlight]

Yes I have done that last night Banana! I have tried one table with 4 fields of which are all text fields with 255 length and I got full 2 gigabyte size only and full pack roughly 2.2 million rows of records only.

Moreover, this does not concern only single users. I am looking forward to multi-users. with several transactions that needs continuity of records from year to year.

 

[SOS]

You're beating a dead horse. Microsoft has no desire to increase the storage capacity of it's SMALL BUSINESS TOOL - Access. It does what 90% of the people need. The other 10% are not cost-effective to go to that extent. I seriously doubt that you are going to get them to change their business strategy based on the arguments you presented. There is nothing in it for them for them to do so. All of your arguments are based on what it does for YOU and nothing on what it does for them. They already GIVE you a database that will hold 4 Gb - SQL Server Express. You can use that if you need enhanced storage capacity. Why should they go to the expense and trouble of making Access fit that when the tool you can use for free already exists?

I don't see a need for it, and they don't see a need for it. I think you're going to have a very uphill battle convincing a majority of users that they need it. And you certainly don't have any arguments to show Microsoft that would give them an incentive to do so. So, give it up. It ain't gonna happen (unless you can show them that to do so would increase their bottom line).

 

[rommelgenlight]

yep. I have stated it on the statement on what is your opinion.

And I think there is no harm in trying. Same as you said, they have expensed making sql server lite to be free so why not do it to ms access if microsoft is to be a user friendly software amongst the rest. they have expensed making access 2007 much more useful for the users to the extent of revising the overall IDE, they have expensed upgrading size limit of 97 version to 2000 version. So much expense have been made in the long run so why not go for an EXTRA MILE for only a small request. That is what I think. That is why they also provided feedback for suggestions from their users because the users are their business.

 

[Banana]

Yes I have done that last night Banana! I have tried one table with 4 fields of which are all text fields with 255 length and I got full 2 gigabyte size only and full pack roughly 2.2 million rows of records only.

Um, 255 characters long text? Four of them? That's woefully ineffective manner of storing data.

Consider that each single character consume 2 bytes. Assuming each field are actually filled with characters to maximum, 255 characters * 2 bytes = 510 bytes per field. Multiply it by four fields and we see that single row consume 2,040 bytes!!! No wonder why you ran out of space so quickly.

Contrast this when we use appropriate data types. Pretending we only need numeric data, we can just use the biggest integers which would consume 4 bytes. 4 bytes * 4 fields = 16 bytes per row.

Suppose furthermore we used Decimal which is more expensive- 12 bytes per field. 12 * 4 = 48 bytes per row.

The point here is that your conjecture that space ran out too quickly for a table with four 255-character text fields is quite unrealistic in most application. As I pointed out, I have a database that contains over 4 million rows and it works just dandy. But even so, if that database were a production database, it'd probably be sitting in a RDBMS instead of Access.

Moreover, this does not concern only single users. I am looking forward to multi-users. with several transactions that needs continuity of records from year to year.

Then why not any RDBMS? There's several to choose from, from absolutely free (e.g. MySQL, PostgreSQL, Firebird) to high-end performance (Oracle, DB/2, SQL Server).

I think you'll find that if you already know SQL, then it's not that hard to move your skillset to a different dialect of SQL.

 

[rommelgenlight]

ofcourse that would be inefficient storing of data. I was just stating how many records will there be by that manner.

 

[SOS]

Sure - ask all you want. But like I said, until you can show them a financial benefit (because they already give you a free 4 Gb datbase in SQL Server Express 2005/2008) they will not do it. Just like any business, they are in the business of making money. If you can show them that they would make more money (and heaven knows how you would do that, because I can't think of anything that would raise their profits from this), from doing so then they might consider it, but until then it is just not going to happen.

 

[rommelgenlight]

in the long run. they have expense for creating new and free stuffs like sql server lite. Do they have benefit or income or sales or increase profits from this free stuffs. I dont think so.

Moreover, they have created the new MS Access 2007 under MS Office 2007 edition. They can increase the price of MS Office 2007 if they want to if to cover up the expense of upgrading the MS Access 2007. And since this product is new, why dont they incorporate the upsizing of the database during the construction expense of this new product. No one will object if they will increase the price if to cover up the expense of upgrading after all this is their business as you said. This way, no more additional cost or expense for free stuffs, and higher profits from raising up the price of the product. and as you can see, if the user will know that this access can handle this storage capacity, why not he decide to purchase it if this is what he really needs. and if this is not, well, that customer is only one of billion customers in this world. and the cost of upgrading there is a one time costing. this is a win-win situation. while if a customer is given an option to buy other software he is not accustomed to, there is still a possibility of no buy.

In the long run, they dont need to make those free stuff and outlay expenses since the product can already handle this need.

 

[rommelgenlight]

http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=173517