[AccessD] Another assessment....2007

Thanks for that Doug. I take it you developed the SPROCs yourself then to do
the binary/blob storage thing ?
What percentage of your retrievals and updates were via SPROCS vs. dynamic
SQL ?

So now based on your comments, it appears it's the new attachment
functionality that is the major reason for the performance problems, not the
accdb format.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Doug Murphy
> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 4:02 PM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Another assessment....2007
>
> We have a client who started with the FE and BE in 2007
> format. The whole system was slowwwwww! Even opening the
> forms in design view was slugish.
> They were using the "new" attachment fields to store Word and
> Excel documents. We got rid of the built in attachment
> functionality, moved the BE to SQL server, and at their
> request put the documents in the database as binaries. The
> whole thing really speeded up, even with the FE in the accdb
> file format.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Mark Simms
> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:50 AM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Another assessment....2007
>
> > but using Access
> > 2003 files with Access 2007 still gives good performance.
>
> So we are narrowing down the problem to the new ACCDB format then ?
> That would also explain the slow response for linked SQL
> Server apps as well.
>
>
> --
> 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
>