[AccessD] 64-but ONLY front end ?

[Ryan W]

I think I'm going to try dynamically unlinking subforms from their
controls.  For the couple of the bigger forms I've made the tab control
link/unlink on change I've saved almost 200MB off my Heap and Private data
has another 70MB saved so far.

I went from 1.3GB used (with these three forms open) to 1.099GB used.

Now if I can figure out how to use a Select Case with an array so I can
'exclude' certain subforms from unlinking.....

 Select Case LBound(MyArray) to UBound(MyArray) sadly doesn't work... but
Select Case MyArray(0),MyArray(1) .. etc does. But that doesn't lend itself
to be dynamic.


On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:47 AM, James Button <jamesbutton at blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> Crude - and maybe cruel to the dev and maintenance staff
> But would it be possible to split the FE into 2 separate activity groups
>
> JimB
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AccessD [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of
> Ryan W
> Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 3:29 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] 64-but ONLY front end ?
>
> Hi Jim,
>  I get the internal constraints. The constraint I'm running into the the
> allowable usable Virtual Memory of a 32 bit process is 2GB. Once I hit that
> wall things crumble.   I don't believe I am hitting 2048 table ID's
> limitation (and really, we only need 3 to 4 forms open most of the time) ..
> the test in a 64 bit VM with 64 bit Office where I opened so many forms
> that my tab area had left/right arrows was just a test that I could
> actually *do* that without getting a resources exceeded message (which I
> can get readily on my own workstation just opening enough forms).
>
> I was hoping for another solution, as we have workstations here that use
> our Access FE that are stuck on a 32 bit OS, which means we will lose
> Access there (unless I continue to compile a 32 bit accde file) but then
> they have to be wary of how many forms or objects they are working with
> (which is the whole point of trying to fix this or move to 64 bit).
>
>  I'm not sure I can get any more mileage out of what we have!  I follow
> most of the best practice rules for access.  I close objects and unset
> ('nothing them') when they are no longer needed.  I don't allow dimensioned
> variables to use the default "variant" type but not explicitly declaring
> it's type and variants are only used where explicitly set.
>
>   One area I could tweak (with a lot of work) would be unlinking subforms
> from the tab control when that tab is not selected.  I do this in some
> places but not all (I inherited thiscodebase)... which I am sure would help
> some but would require quite a bit of re-work since some tab controls have
> multiple (small) subforms on them.
> --
> 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
>