jwcolby
jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Fri Mar 6 17:30:14 CST 2009
> ...I'm hoping Access 14 addresses such issues but I'm not holding my breath I would be content if Access 21 addressed such issues. I figure 2049 is a good timetable for finally fixing bugs instead of just adding pretty ribbon bars. John W. Colby www.ColbyConsulting.com William Hindman wrote: > ...a couple of points for consideration. > > ...I'm not currently using record level locking on any app with an mdb be > ...there are persistent stories tying it to increased corruption issues when > the option is selected, even when the fe runs strictly dao. > > ...and while jet does provide record level locking once initiated from ado, > it still reserves a full 4k page in memory for each such record ...thus > significantly increasing the bloat in the mdb until it is compacted ...a > long day with many users can thus become a problem. > > ...there are good reasons to use record level locking but its not simply a > win-win decision. > > ...I'm hoping Access 14 addresses such issues but I'm not holding my breath > ...it looks to me as if the gui boys are driving the train now. > > William > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Jim Dettman" <jimdettman at verizon.net> > Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 4:23 PM > To: "'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'" > <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Page Locking Happening - But Set to Record Locking > >> Dan, >> >> Here's the link to the article (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306435) >> and William is 100% correct that it is not a bug in the traditional sense, >> but rather "by design" >> >> I always refer to it as a bug though because I consider it to be broken. >> When you modify something as fundamental as locking in a database product, >> I >> think it's unconscionable when you don't have it working right out of the >> gate and you know about it! Especially given that DAO was still the best >> object lib for working with JET databases. >> >> Jim. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Dan Waters >> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 9:35 PM >> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' >> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Page Locking Happening - But Set to Record Locking >> >> Wow! That's a head-turner! >> >> I do have to say that I haven't seen this behavior in Access 2002 or 2003. >> So perhaps they did fix it in those versions. But this client uses Access >> 2000. >> >> And yes - if you can give me a lead to the KB article I will be in your >> debt! I don't know how but it's a good sentiment! :-) >> >> Thanks! >> Dan >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim Dettman >> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 6:58 PM >> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' >> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Page Locking Happening - But Set to Record Locking >> >> Dan, >> >> Even though you are set for "record level" locking, not all operations >> are >> done at that level. Index updates, memo pages, DML operations, etc. are >> always done at page level. >> >> Also the first user in must be set for record level locking otherwise >> everyone defaults to page level regardless of setting. >> >> There is also a bug where DAO in code will not record level lock unless >> you first open a recordset in ADO. There is a MSKB article on that which >> I >> can dig out if you want. >> >> Jim. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Dan Waters >> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 6:11 PM >> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' >> Subject: [AccessD] Page Locking Happening - But Set to Record Locking >> >> Twice now I've seen what appears to be page locking in the BE mdb when >> that >> file is set to record locking. About 8 contiguous records show locking - >> reminds me of Access 97, but they are using Access 2000. >> >> Has anyone seen this before or know of a fix? >> >> Thanks! >> Dan >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> >> >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> >