Question why small size?
- Thread starter marianne
- Start date
Rabbie
Super Moderator
- Local time
- Today, 04:57
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2007
- Messages
- 5,887
You already posted something almost identical to this. Why repeat it? Do you think we are too stupid to get it the first time?
rabbie, I cannot remember I have posted same forum because I have posted to several forums already. On the other hand, I dont say that the people here are stupid that I repeated the forum. Just like RAINLOVER, he havent replied probably on my previous forum that he have now seen this forum and have a reply on my comment.
ANYWAY if I have to reiterate:
1. the business using the access program is just small that it didn't need an IT dept.
2. the business who receives the program does not know much of servers
3. the business would like to store all the information in a database storage
4. the business is small income generating but heavy on its documentations.
5. the database is normalized and splitted to FE and BE
ANYWAY if I have to reiterate:
1. the business using the access program is just small that it didn't need an IT dept.
2. the business who receives the program does not know much of servers
3. the business would like to store all the information in a database storage
4. the business is small income generating but heavy on its documentations.
5. the database is normalized and splitted to FE and BE
If they want to use database storage then there's nothing stopping them from using SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL, or just any other RDBMS of their choosing and using Access as a front-end client....
This is precisely the reason why I perceive the 2 GB ceiling of Access database to be largely moot.
This is precisely the reason why I perceive the 2 GB ceiling of Access database to be largely moot.
Okay, I had assumed that's why they're paying you to do this- to build a program for them and maintain it as necessary.
Even if you were only contracted to develop and not to maintain, they could at least get a hosting solution where they pay someone else to maintain the server.
Furthermore, if Access program is designed well, they wouldn't really need to do any of administering upon the database server directly and the server can be left running for quite long time without any monitoring.
Even if you were only contracted to develop and not to maintain, they could at least get a hosting solution where they pay someone else to maintain the server.
Furthermore, if Access program is designed well, they wouldn't really need to do any of administering upon the database server directly and the server can be left running for quite long time without any monitoring.
no. actually they develop their own program so they will not incur cost.
that is why I also wonder, why microsoft access team did not develop the program to handle huge amount of size. Is it possible to create such access to handle gigabyte storage or not?
that is why I also wonder, why microsoft access team did not develop the program to handle huge amount of size. Is it possible to create such access to handle gigabyte storage or not?
RainLover
VIP From a land downunder
- Local time
- Today, 15:57
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 5,031
marianne
Microsoft is not about to increase the size. Why would they? They most likely want to to buy SQL Server. After all they are in business to make money.
Also I assume you have done a compact and repair. Haven't you.?
Microsoft is not about to increase the size. Why would they? They most likely want to to buy SQL Server. After all they are in business to make money.
Also I assume you have done a compact and repair. Haven't you.?
Here's a different take on it.
Do they actually need the whole data at once? Or are we talking about say, 50 GB *archived* data? If it's just archive, then it's a matter of moving them out into .csv files and storing them on a backup medium, leaving the business with only the active data they are working on for this moment.
Even if they did need more than 2 GB of active data, it now goes to what has already been stated- if it's that essential and huge, then the business will have to cough up the dough to support it. They don't have to hire a full time DBA and a 32 GB, 10UB RAID array octo-core server with Oracle installed to do that; it can be just a small step upward such as signing up with a hosting company that provides a shared database and allowing Access to manage the access to the shared database server.
Even though 2 GB is quite miniscule in grand scheme of things, but when looking at it as a desktop application for storing text and numbers, it's more than aplenty.
Do they actually need the whole data at once? Or are we talking about say, 50 GB *archived* data? If it's just archive, then it's a matter of moving them out into .csv files and storing them on a backup medium, leaving the business with only the active data they are working on for this moment.
Even if they did need more than 2 GB of active data, it now goes to what has already been stated- if it's that essential and huge, then the business will have to cough up the dough to support it. They don't have to hire a full time DBA and a 32 GB, 10UB RAID array octo-core server with Oracle installed to do that; it can be just a small step upward such as signing up with a hosting company that provides a shared database and allowing Access to manage the access to the shared database server.
Even though 2 GB is quite miniscule in grand scheme of things, but when looking at it as a desktop application for storing text and numbers, it's more than aplenty.
marianne,
What is the official title of your position with this small business to which you refer?
What is the size of the current database back-end file?
By how much does the back-end file grow on a daily basis?
"" on a weekly basis?
"" on a monthly basis?
What is the official title of your position with this small business to which you refer?
What is the size of the current database back-end file?
By how much does the back-end file grow on a daily basis?
"" on a weekly basis?
"" on a monthly basis?
i dont have any position there. it's my friends business and we talk about access how she should do it.
the current size now it 1.2 gig. it has been their db for 2 1/2 years now or so. I dont know how much is the increment of the size per day, weekly or monthly.
though I know some of sql, but I dont like to touch their business. I dont want to mess their db. it was our recourse to upgrade to sql later. however, our question and we are just curious why dont microsoft increase the size into more bigger one.
the current size now it 1.2 gig. it has been their db for 2 1/2 years now or so. I dont know how much is the increment of the size per day, weekly or monthly.
though I know some of sql, but I dont like to touch their business. I dont want to mess their db. it was our recourse to upgrade to sql later. however, our question and we are just curious why dont microsoft increase the size into more bigger one.
- Local time
- Today, 04:57
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 16,074
marianne
without wishing to be argumentative
1.2Gb is abosolutely enormous for a database. In most normal circumstances this would indicate a database for a very substantial business.
The database manager responsible for such a large database, should be knowledgeable enough to be able to examine this database, and either compact this, split it into multiple databases, delete older unneeded transactions, or if necessary migrate to another platform. Alternatively the people who supplied the database should be able to answer/resolve these points.
On another thread you have asked what vb references should be used for.
So it just strikes me that if your database is REALLY as large as you say, then perhaps you need some professional help to resolve whatever issues you have, while you are still learning about databases.
without wishing to be argumentative
1.2Gb is abosolutely enormous for a database. In most normal circumstances this would indicate a database for a very substantial business.
The database manager responsible for such a large database, should be knowledgeable enough to be able to examine this database, and either compact this, split it into multiple databases, delete older unneeded transactions, or if necessary migrate to another platform. Alternatively the people who supplied the database should be able to answer/resolve these points.
On another thread you have asked what vb references should be used for.
So it just strikes me that if your database is REALLY as large as you say, then perhaps you need some professional help to resolve whatever issues you have, while you are still learning about databases.
Rabbie
Super Moderator
- Local time
- Today, 04:57
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2007
- Messages
- 5,887
I would endorse this. The database for my wife's veterinary practice which has been running for over 11 years now has a BE db of approx 25mb. Quite a long way before it reaches 1.2GB
This is not a trivial db - the size is kept down by regular compaction and sensible design to ensure data is properly normalised. Now I realise that all businesses are different but because of the nature of Veterinary practice there are relatively many small transactions rather than fewer larger ones which can lead to a larger DB than the turnover would suggest but I find it hard to believe that any small business DB would need to be so large.
I saw it asked in an earlier post if the DB had been compacted but I missed the reply. perhaps you could confirm that the Db is regularly compacted.
Marianne,
Like Rabbi I have a database that has been going for over 10 years and it is about 100MB, even if I embedded all 17,000 images as jpegs, it would be under 1GB. As Rabbi suggested I would compact the BE. If this does resolve the size issue I would try:
Copying the BE and creating a separate test database and import the tables one at a time and compact after each import to see if there is huge increase in the test database's file size.
I would also check:
1) if temporary tables are being created
2) if there are OLE objects eg. documents embedded into the database
3) if there are any field sizes that are too large or if there are redundant fields.
Simon
Like Rabbi I have a database that has been going for over 10 years and it is about 100MB, even if I embedded all 17,000 images as jpegs, it would be under 1GB. As Rabbi suggested I would compact the BE. If this does resolve the size issue I would try:
Copying the BE and creating a separate test database and import the tables one at a time and compact after each import to see if there is huge increase in the test database's file size.
I would also check:
1) if temporary tables are being created
2) if there are OLE objects eg. documents embedded into the database
3) if there are any field sizes that are too large or if there are redundant fields.
Simon
ChrisO
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 15:57
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2003
- Messages
- 3,171
Marianne.
Why ask others to describe their database when it is you that started this thread?
Why not tell us the daily record count in that database and the data in those records?
If you don’t know, because it’s a friend’s database (as you said in post #34), then why not get them to come on to this site to answer those questions?
Why ask others to describe their database when it is you that started this thread?
Why not tell us the daily record count in that database and the data in those records?
If you don’t know, because it’s a friend’s database (as you said in post #34), then why not get them to come on to this site to answer those questions?
Similar threads
