Partial Replication

[RCurtin]

Hi,
I've been reading about this alot today but can't decide for sure if I should replicate my database or not. The users will have a front end installed on their local drive and the back end is on a shared server.

Basically the users will not be able to add or delete records. However, they can update one column- its a checkbox that allows them to select a record or records in a continuous form. I imagine that if 2 users were using it simultanuously and one de-selected all the records, they would be deselected on the other persons form? This is why I think I need a partial replica. That way when the user opens the database they get a fresh copy of the new data and can select and deselect drawings without interfering with others.

All records are automatically selected when the form is opened so updating changes in the master is not an issue.

Please let me know if I'm on the right track here..

 

[RCurtin]

Also, if I do create partial replicas should I store those on the users local drive along with the front end?

I will also have 3 or 4 users who would need to have access to the full version. Should they be linked to the master copy on the server..?

 

[RCurtin]

Please let me know what you think. Need to get this installed on everyones computers today.
I will have 2 main groups using it:

1. One group (about 3 or 4 people) who will need access to the full thing - I was going to link their version to the master version.
2. The second group just need a few of the tables. Basically the purpose of the main form is to allow the user to search, sort and filter the records. I was thinking of linking their front end to a partial replica. These users will not be able to add/delete records. They can only update that one checkbox column. (All of the records are selected by default when the form opens).If the users copy on the local drive synchronised with the master on the server when it is opened that would be sufficient. (The master copy would never need to be updated with changes from the replicas.) There are alot of records - at least 2,000 each month so I think storing it on the hard drive would speed it up?

Another thing that just occured to me. If I did store the partial replica on the users local drive would it need to be an MBE file because some users won't have Access? Can a replica be an MBE file?

 

[RCurtin]

Copy backend to users local drive instead of replicating

Ok, think I've found the best solution..

I can just distribute a bat file to each of the users that will copy the backend of the database from the server onto their local drive and open the database. I don't need alot of the features of replication really - for instance synchronising data bi-directionally. I just want the the second group of users to have an up-to-date record set each time they open the application. They do need access to all of the records in the 2 main tables so its easiest just to copy the entire backend. It should also be faster if they are linked to a local back end which is important because there will be a lot of records (even though it will be a little slower to open it as the backend will be copied).

I read somewhere that no users should be linked to the master copy directly which I intended to do with my first group of users - this wouldn't be a problem with this solution.

Also from reading the replication FAQ it seems that workgroup files and security might be an issue with replication. (Took me way too long to get teh security working to mess with it now!)

Ok, think thats decided then! Would still be interested to get your opinions though..

 

[Len Boorman]

Its me again

Replication has its uses I will not deny but normally it is done because there is either a lot of data or there are widely distributed users that only need sub sets of the data.

Synchronisation may not be an issue now but changes (as will happen) in your database may cloud the issue.

If I have Users will that I want to control in different ways I adopt alternative strategies.
1) Control what they can see/do in a single interface using say their network logon id
2) Give them a different interface

Both of these interfaces are Interfaces only and both use linked tables within a Data Repository Application that nobody cept myself has an interface

However always go with what you are happy with, you will be the one to support it

Len

 

[RCurtin]

Hi Len,
Thanks for the reply.

I do have 2 different start up screens for my 2 groups. Thats the only way in which the front end is different for the 2 groups so it will be easy when updating it. Depending on which group the user is in they have different permissions.

The larger group of users will never be entering data into the database or updating it (except for one checkbox column and that is only a temporary session field anyways). So I think copying the backend to their local drive is the simplest solution.

Thanks again for the reply though..