New Table vs. Linked Table

hstreff

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 14:52
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
19
When doing an import, in our case from dBase, is it better to make a new table or link to the table? If you link to the table how does it effect the performance of Access?

Also, I like the idea of viewing all my tables in that left navigation pane. But I'm not sure that I want all of my tables within 1 database. I have multiple tables that, in one way or another, are related to eachother. If I have each table in it's own database can I still view all my tables in that left navigation pane? If a table is in a different database, can I still have a relationship between the two tables?

Thanks,

Heather
 
It's probably better to have the links: why re-invent the wheel? Iam not sure what you mean by having your tables in the "left navigation pane"? Do you mean Favorites? If you have relationships between tables in dBase you will need to re-establish those in Access when linked. But then if you imported the table you would need to do that as well.

There is a performance hit because a connection must be established with your source. I use links to a SQL Server db accross a VPN to a remote source using Access as a report generation tool; and other than when first opening Access I do not notice any performance issues. Of course I try to keep queries as pass through to views and or stored procedures in the SQL backend for performance reasons...

HTH
 
Linked tables don't really have a performance hit unless you try to do aggregates on them (count the number of records, sum a field, etc.), but even then, it's usually a minimal hit. As mentioned, it depends on where the linked tables are. If they're in your office just on someone else's computer through an intranet, then you may or may not even notice the links being different. If, however, they are in some remote office, it will be far more noticeable.

You'll also have to put the tables you want to link in a stable place. If you're constantly moving the DB around that contains the linked tables, then you'll constantly have to re-link them.

And finally, doco, the "left navigation pane" is probably a reference to Access 2007, where all the objects (tables, queries, etc.) are in a left navigation pane. If you haven't used it yet, it's quite different from Access 97/200x. It grows on you, but is confusing at first.
 
And finally, doco, the "left navigation pane" is probably a reference to Access 2007, where all the objects (tables, queries, etc.) are in a left navigation pane. If you haven't used it yet, it's quite different from Access 97/200x. It grows on you, but is confusing at first.

I purchased Office 2007 Enterprise several months ago and have not yet loaded (actually IT got it by mistake as I requested 2003 Pro). And somewhat because I would be the only one in the organization (very large) to have it and I understand even the file structure is different. Also because I have read enough bad press to disuade me of using it.
 
Doco, to quote you and your "bad press" comment:

"Concensus [sic] is the lack of leadership"

You said you're in a large organization, so obviously don't upgrade to Office 2007 on your own, but Access 2007 is pretty slick. I'm not a Microsoft evangelist by any means, but once you're used to the new interface, it's almost disappointing to go back to Access 97/200x.

For the record, it (Access 2007) hasn't bombed a single thing I've written (anywhere between 2000 and 2003 Access versions) for my current company, also very large (30,000+ employees). It's the interface that is at first foreign.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom