Which is better for multi-users: Splitting Database OR Link to Data Source?

MonsterMike

New member
Local time
Today, 03:05
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
6
Hello,

This is my first post here so apologies if I violate any norms...

My question:

Which is better for multi-users: Splitting Database OR Linking to Data Source?

I understand splitting the database into front-end and back-end could be the best way to allow multiple users to interact with the database. But what about the option of creating multiple databases that link together? Is it similar since the splitting option actually links the front-end to the back-end?

Supposing I had 20 users, my understanding is that the option to "Link to the data source by creating a linked table" would mean I would have to have 20 different database files that all link together and would be updated instantly as any field changes are made.

However, using the splitting method, I would create one front-end file and distribute to all 20 users, and they would all link to the back-end database.

So which method is better?

Any input or suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Mike
 
I suspect they're one and the same. There's really no such thing as having 20 databases that "all link together and would be updated instantly as any field changes are made". I suspect that was meant to describe a split db, where the front end is linked to the data source.
 
Thanks for your reply, but I think I may have miscommunicated. Just to make sure I am receiving your communication as you intended it. Here is how I understand it:

Option 1. Splitting Database via Database Splitter Wizard: This would create one back-end file with the tables, and one front-end file with forms and queries. I would distribute the same front-end file to 20 users' desktops. The database tables would update only by using the forms. This would reduce traffic because the database is only being accessed when data is sent through the forms.

Option 2. Creating 20 Databases that Link Together: I create a blank database file for each user, then import the source database tables via linking to the source database file by using the Import & Link tool and selecting the radio button "Link to the data source by creating a linked table." This creates a replica of the database for each user that is linked to the source, but has the exact same tables. As data is updated and saved by one user in either the linked database or the source database, all linked tables will update to show the manipulations of the other user.

Are you saying both options are the same, just different ways of going about it? The reason I'm confused is because all of the multi-user tutorials I have seen on the internet say the best method is Option 1 described above. However, an associate here at my office has been using Option 2. I'm wondering if either option is preferable or has advantages over the other, or if they are essentially the same thing.

Thank you for your input and patience with my confusion! I don't have a lot of experience with Access.
 
Maybe my brain is just fading since it's past my lunch time, but Option 2 makes no sense. However, you are ending up with the same thing created by Option 1; front end databases with links to a common back end. Option 2 makes sense if you create ONE blank database, go through the linking process, then make 20 copies of it. Why go though the linking process 20 times? And the files aren't linked to each other, each of them is linked to the single back end.

Bottom line is that I think you're talking about 2 different methods of creating the same end product. I've never used the splitter wizard myself, I build them split from scratch, so I suppose I'm using option 2. That way I never run into the "gee, this worked correctly before I split the db".

I'm off to lunch so maybe I'll feel differently after I get some food in me! :p
 
Happy to help, and welcome to the site by the way!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom