I am having to develop an application very rapidly. I have chosen SQL Server (2012) as the DB backend, and I will write all my stored procs, triggers etc in the backend.
However, for UI (logon, reporting etc), I am using Access 2010 for the frontend. I am new to both Access used earlier versions of Access waaay back in the day) and SQL Server (familiar with other Db's).
The goal is to have the database reside on a server and let clients connect with an instance of Access 2010 running locally on their machine.
I am looking for a quick tutorial that shows me how to use the SQL server objects from the Access frontend (I believe its called linking) - any link to useful resource would be very helpful, as I can't seem to locate anything useful (I may searching using the wrong keywords).
Assuming you built all the tables and data on SQL server, then in Access it is a simple matter to link Access to that database.
And to save development time, you can continue to use the Access simple approach of using forms bound to those tables. As long as you launch a form with some kind of criteria (say an invoice number), then that bound form will ONLY pull down the one record from SQL server into that form. (so need to write or use store procedures etc. for that form). And any triggers etc. you have built in SQL server will run without you having to do anything from the Access side.
So a plane jane form build in Access that is bound to a table of say 1 million rows in Access does not need any “special” code – just make sure you launch the form with the “where” clause that Access provides and the form will only pull + load the one record.
So 99% of the normal development process you used in Access in the past will continue to work. Using SQL server for the most part does not change much if anything in regards to building forms that edit such data.
However, for reports and some forms that query + search for data etc., or some VBA code that needs to “process” data, you are most free to call store procedures. You simply create a pass-through query in Access. The VBA code to use that T-SQL thus looks like this:
Currentdb.QueryDefs("MyRawt-sqlPassThoughquery").Execute
Or
with CurrentDb.QueryDefs("MyPass")
.SQL = "exec sp_myProc"
.Execute
end with
In the past for most access applications you likely used liked tables – those linked tables can be to a Access file (back end), or Oracle, or SQL server – how the actual application works and functions is really much the same for all cases. (so there not really a lot of “specific” things you need to know from the Access side – if you comfortable with Oracle, or SQL server, then using Access as a front end works just fine, and the typical development approaches used in Access will remain typical.
Here is an article that outlines the linking process:
https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Import-or-link-to-SQL-Server-data-A5A3B4EB-57B9-45A0-B732-77BC6089B84E?ui=en-US&rs=en-US&ad=US&fromAR=1
Keep in mind you will see MANY articles that talk about ADP projects - they have been deprecated since Access 2010, and I don't recommend using ADP projects with Access - so be careful, since many articles that talk about Access + SQL server are built around ADP projects which as noted should not be used anymore.
This office.microsoft.com article should give you a good overview.
With plenty of more technical information searching for "query sql server from ms access".
Don't mess about with linked tables. Use an Access ADP (Access data project), which is natively connected to SQL Server. Sadly this type of access file is being phased out but it is the optimal solution for an MS Access front end with a SQL Server back end
Pros and Cons of Access Data Project (MS Access front end with SQL Server Backend)
Related
I have a series of Access 2002 "Front-end/Back-end" applications all related to each other. For example, application A has linked tables with application B and vice versa.
The applications are at a stage where daily compaction and repair is required due to the volume and high level of corruption. Moreover, to be able to make the applications work properly, I must make the changes in a virtual environment with Access 2002. I also need to reinstall "Access runtime 2010 - 32bits" and copy the Access files (.mde) on every workstation (Windows 10) every time I am making a change in the applications.
#Gustav This is a temporary option (6 months to 18 months) because the customer would like to go to a complete solution with SQL database. The studied solution is configurable and already has a SQL database schema.
I have already done the test to transfer forms, tables, queries and modules to Access 365 but I have errors in the VBA code. All business rules are coded in the VBA code. I also did the transfer of the tables to SQL Server 2017 but I'm afraid I will have to change a lot of VBA code because of the disuse of the DAO engine in the Access 365 front-end.
In fact, to be clearer, I wonder about the need to change the front end to Access knowing that it is a temporary solution.
Maybe, I should keep the software under respirator by eliminating data history in large tables. The time the client takes their decision. Find the "sweet spot" that would allow me to erase and continue to maintain it without having to worry about corruptions because I have a hard time seeing a substantial gain in the migration to the Access 365 front-end. What do you think?
I have already proposed to migrate applications and tables in the new version of to Access 2019 and even moving on SQL Server. However, for now, I must put the application on the respirator and continue the daily compaction until a decision is made.
I would like to know if there is a gain to migrate from Access 2002 to the Access 2019 version knowing the total limit of 2 GB Access. What are the major constraints he would have to migrate to a SQL database knowing that the VBA application and code uses the DAO method?
#Albert D. Kallal
I really like your answer. I should come to a decision soon.
However, I have 2 additional questions. Perhaps, could you guide me on the subject.
There are two things that have recently came to haunt the tranquility that reigned over these applications.
1- For a unknown reason, one of the applications that was part of the swarm of Access applications was blocked for some time with these errors 'Runtime 3027: Cannot update: Database or object is read only'. The problem is that some users have ignored this error and continue their tasks which caused a data shift.
I had to go back with backup copy because some tables were not updated.
Looking more closely at the error in the VBA code I noticed that it all came from the DAO Recordset.Edit method containing queries with multiples joins.
I managed to work around this problem by modifying the Edit method with DoCmd.RunSQL and by changing the query from a Select to an Update query.
However, the whole method worked perfectly well before.
Can you explain to me the cause of this error?
2- The original developer did not necessarily use best practices for the design of the application (no autonumber, some tables without primary key, no foreign keys) so I'm afraid that a new design will need to be done if I migrate to a SQL Server database. Or maybe to save time, as this solution is going to disappear in 18 months, I should only replicate the bad practices in SQL Server and pray that it does not cause any more glitches. What would be your professional approach?
Thank you
There may be none. Open the database in Access 2019/365 and save it in the 2007 (accdb) format, and check it out.
As for the distribution, you can make this fully automatic using a script and a shortcut. It is explained in full in my article:
Deploy and update a Microsoft Access application with one click
If you don't have an account, browse to the link: Read the full article.
Push hard to get a confirmation on the move of all the shared tables to an SQL Server backend.
A few things:
To update your mde or accDE front end? That is a simple copy to each workstation. You don’t need to re-install the runtime each time. There is no “special” connection between one particular application (mde/accde) that you deploy to each workstation.
In other words:
If you writing software in VB6, then you need to install the VB6 run time (but only one time). After that you can simply copy + deploy your application to each workstation.
If you writing software in say .net then again, you have to ensure the correct .net framework is installed on each computer. Once done, then again you can update your software by a simple copy to each workstation.
And the same goes for using the access run time. Once installed, then you can simply copy any mde/accDE to that workstation, double click on it and it will run. So the run time is not connected to any particular database you copy to the workstation. Once you have the runtime installed, then you can rather easy cook up some automatic update code for the front end to "check" some version number, and then copy down the new updated front end. There are quite a few ways to do this - even a simple batch file can often suffice here.
So in near all cases these days, you will have to do “one time” install of the required run-time and support libraries. This is the case for .net, older VB6 programs, or Access.
As for migration of the access table data to SQL server?
You should be able to simply migrate the table data to SQL server. Now link the application tables from the older access back end to SQL server.
At this point, 99% of your VBA and even DAO recordset code should work just fine.
There is no need (or even a good reason) to dump using DAO code you have – it should work as before with VERY few modifications.
About the only change is for code that does this:
Dim strSQL As String
Dim rst As DAO.Recordset
strSQL = "select * from tblCustomers where City = 'Edmonton'"
Set rst = CurrentDb.OpenRecordset(strSQL)
' above for SQL server becomes:
Set rst = CurrentDb.OpenRecordset(strSQL, dbOpenDynaset, dbSeeChanges)
And you can even migrate the tables with indexes, and table relationships intact by using the Sql Server Migration Assistant for Access (SSMA). You can find this fantastic tool here:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=54255
So, about 99% of existing forms and VBA code will work as before after you migrate the data to SQL server.
We are maintaining Microsoft Access 2016 database for Locker Management Inventory. The database contains complex queries (Computed Columns) , Reports and Database backend file is also on the same computer.
We are required to use SQL Server Management Studio 2012 as our Back-end for Microsoft Access Forms and this form is required to be accessed by 10 Users on LAN. Please guide Step by Step Procedure for this task.
Thanks in Anticipation.
Access is inherently multi user and has no problem linking to tables on a SQL Server that is on the same LAN.
The design steps are typically to design the application in Access, unsplit, in a single file. Then when the app is ready - one splits the file into a back end and front end that are linked. One can copy the front end multiple times for multiple users.
These steps above are all Access and you'll find good documentation online and in any textbook for the Access database.
The final step, if one must use SQL Server as the back end, is to then import those tables from the Access back end file into the SQL Server. This is not uncommon but the instructions for this would be in SQL Server area.
Hope this helps.
One must understand the fundamental architecture: a multi user Access application is 2 files: front and back (this is actually what they are called). There is only 1 back file - it is where the tables are held. The front file can be copied repeatedly, 1 per user, and all fronts link to the single back end file.
SQL Server is the back end and Access is the front end - in your case.
One only really needs the SQL Server product as the back end file if the payload is particularly high. Pay load is combination of the quantity of records and simultaneous users.
The basic approach is to split your database into two parts. A built in database splitter is built into Access. Once done, you could in theory just place the back end accDB access file on some server folder that is shared to everyone. You then use the linked table manager in Access to link to the back end file.
Since you been “mandated” to use SQL server, then you would migrate the back end accDB file tables to sql server, and then re-link (again use the built in table manager) to link the tables to SQL server. So the process for linking to an access file, or linking to sql server is near identical. The end result is your access application will now be using tables that reside on SQL server. From a developer and even user point of view your forms, code, reports etc. will continue to run as before.
And as a general rule it only makes sense to run SQL server on your machine for development use. You would have to copy/transfer the sql database to that “mandated” instance of SQL server they are telling you to use that presumably is running on some server. It would not make sense to mandate use of SQL server without you being provided with some server running SQL server.
It certainly is possible to allow users to connect to YOUR computer running SQL server, but that seems less than ideal since if you re-boot, shut down or your computer freezes, then all other users would suffer a connection break and much inconvenience.
I mean, right now if you have a shared folder for all users, such folders are typically NOT placed on one users computer, but some dedicated machine that acts as some kind of server for everyone.
So if they are telling you to use SQL server, then it quite much assumed they are providing a dedicated machine that is running SQL server. So certainly for development you can (and even should) run SQL server on your machine. However you would then have to transfer that database to the computer/server they are telling you to use with SQL server. And then you would re-link your Access application tables to now point to that production server. The last step would be to then distribute this correctly linked application to each user. So just like all software you purchase such as word, or Excel, you STILL install that software on each computer. Now that you are building software, then you as a developer will adopt the same concept – that is to distribute and install your software on each workstation. So while you might use word or Excel (or Access) from the local computer, you also may well often “share” some data files (but NOT the application) on the server.
As long as the application you distribute to each workstation is correctly linked and points to the server based edition of SQL server, then you all be sharing the same database. You will NOT in practice have multiple users working on and using the application you created, but distribute that Access application to each workstation. How you “get” that application to each workstation is not really any different then how you would supply a word document or Excel sheet – the only requirement here being that each workstation gets their own copy. Since each users copy of this application has linked tables that point to SQL server, then you all working on and sharing a common database.
So the first concept to grasp is that of spitting a database. I explain this concept here:
http://www.kallal.ca/Articles/split/index.htm
As for some steps and migrating to sql server, here is a great starting point:
https://www.fmsinc.com/MicrosoftAccess/SQLServerUpsizing/index.html
A colleague I work with recently told me that SQL Express and MS Access were essentially the same thing; that does not seem to be an accurate statement. I know you can convert Access to a SQL DB and maybe under the covers they are similar, but I would assume that the SQL DB engine and what is used to run access are not the same. Not only that, but the SQL statement syntax, etc. I know are not the same.
I am mainly trying to understand so that I am more informed about the versions.
Um, no, not the same.
First off, I need to clear up some terminology. MS Access is a Rapid Application Development (RAD) tool that allows you to quickly build forms and reports that are bound to relational data. It comes with a file-based database engine (Jet/ACE).
Access the RAD tool can be used with many different backend databases (Jet, SQL Server, any db that supports ODBC, etc). I have to assume your colleague was specifically commenting on Jet/ACE, ie the database engine that MS Access uses.
I think the single biggest difference between the Jet/ACE database engine and MS SQL Server Express is that Jet/ACE is file-based and SQL Server Express uses a client/server model. This means that SQL Server Express requires a running service to provide access to the datastore. This can complicate deployment in some scenarios.
SQL Server Express is really just a throttled-back version of SQL Server: max database size of 4GB (10GB in 2008R2), only uses a single physical CPU, etc. These limitations are imposed to prevent large organizations from using the freely available Express edition in place of a full-blown SQL Server install. The upshot to this is that SQL Server Express offers a truly seamless upgrade path to SQL Server. It is also (generally speaking) a more robust and fully featured database management system then Jet/ACE.
Similarities
relational database management systems
written by Microsoft
Differences
MS Access
File based
free distributable runtime (2007 or later)
RAD tools (form/report designer)
uses Jet SQL
max file size 2GB
SQL Server Express
Client/Server model
free
no RAD tools
uses Transact-SQL
max database size 4GB (10GB for SSE R2), max one physical CPU
I think what your colleague had in mind was SQL Server CE, which is a super-lightweight embedded database, which is still (IMO) far superior to Access in database-management aspect. SQL Express cannot even be compared with Access without offending the former.
Here are the datasheets for both products so you can see some hard facts on the difference between the two databases.
Access:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/access-help/access-specifications-HP005186808.aspx
SQL (Express is listed on the far right column):
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/editions-compare.aspx
The comment I have always read is that Access is great for single user single access database use, the minute you scale beyond a single user look elsewhere. While that may be a "bit" of a stretch, Access really does not do well in a multi-user environment. From experience we've had a client who has ignored and ignored our requests to migrate a backend database from Access to SQL, and there have been numerous occasions where we have had to restore from backups, or take the Access database offline due to corruption.
They are two completely different technologies with two different target markets. The database engines are indeed different, as you mention T-SQL is different than Access SQL.
You can "scale up" an Access database to SQL by creating an SSIS package or other tool to do the import, but this takes the Access schema and data and migrates it to a true SQL database. It does more than just attach the Access database or the like.
Anytime you need a "real" database I'd highly recommend looking at any of the SQL versions that are available over Access.
Just remember that with MS-Access you don't have size limitations if you play your cards right. There is no reason, for example, not to have many 2 to 4 Gig tables each contained singularly in their own database. Your ODBC applications can open a connection to multiple MS-Access databases and query the single table in each. So you can have a database containing trillions of records, stored in multiple MDB files. One company I went to work for was using a single MS-Access database to run a issue tracking system done in MS-Access forms. They could only use it one person at a time because of sharing issues that would lock MS-Access up. I wrote a Win32 Perl native Windows GUI user-interface to the database that was better at field/record validation, and my ODBC code was able to manage the connection for simultaneous user access. I managed the opening and reading and writing and closing of the database for each user through my Perl program. I did not leave the database open. I did not maintain a persistent connection for each user, but instead only maintained a connection long enough to retrieve a record for edit. Then I closed the connection until it was time to write the record back to the database. Also, I wrote my own record locking program logic by maintaining a user login table that contained the record id of the record a user was currently editing, then erased that entry when no longer editing that record. When another user went to edit the same record, the program checked if that record was currently open for edit by another user. The system worked flawlessly. MS-Access never locked up via ODBC and multi-user access. I even embedded the password to the database in my compiled Perl program so that no one could get to the data in the Access database other than through my Perl program.
I have an old Access application that has a lot of code in forms and reports. The database is getting too large and I am thinking of moving the back end to SQL Server.
My requirements are as follows:
The DB needs to be multiuser and the users (3-5) will need to log in over the web
I would prefer not to re-write the forms and reports in ASP or some other web front end.
When I think about my choices, I see them as:
Have an Access ADP front end and allows remote log-in to the server where it is stored. Not sure if it is possible for 2 users to simultaneously log in
Distribute an ADP front end to the users, but I am not sure if it is possible to connect to a SQL Server back end over the internet, and the network traffic may be an issue.
Any other solution?
I appreciate all help.
u
I would recommend against rewriting as ADP (you do realize, I hope, that you can't convert an MDB to ADP?). ADP has been deprecated by MS for about the last 5 years, and has received no development attention in the last two versions of Access (A2007 and A2010). It may get some attention in the next version of Access, or it may be dropped (as was the case with DAPs after two versions of no changes).
The easiest way to roll out multi-site access to an Access application is with Windows Terminal Server. This is extremely easy to implement and not all that expensive and requires no alterations to your Access application (I assume you'd upsize the back end regardless, of course).
You also might want to familiarize yourself with the fabulous new features of Access 2010 that integrate with Sharepoint Server 2010 and its new Access Services to allow the development of an Access app that runs almost identically in the Access client and in a web browser (via Sharepoint). This would require a major rewrite, of course, but it's also quite scalable.
It's also the future of Access, so far as I can see, and will be getting lots of attention from Microsoft over the next few years.
I work on a clients MDB FE on a VPN/ADSL connection to their server. It's slightly more sluggish in some areas than working in their office. But it does work well. So I see no need to convert the app to ADP format.
Note that they've done a lot of work creating views and stored procedures to greatly improve performance.
There is a tool from the SQL Server group which is better than the built in Upsizing Wizard. SQL Server Migration Assistant for Access (SSMA Access)
Also see my Random Thoughts on SQL Server Upsizing from Microsoft Access Tips page.
The only secure way to expose a sql server back end to and access front end over the internet is over a vpn. Unless you rewrite queries and other sql in the access code to execute queries on the sql server, sql server is probably going to transfer entire tables to the acccess front end forprocessing and filtering which will be slow over a vpn. If you really don't want to have to recode i think rdp acess is going to work best.
ADP is definitely faster over a WAN than linked tables. Linked tables are the least efficient thing in the world. Jet didn't get any new features for 10 years.. Access Data Projects get new features through every release including Access 2000, 2002, 2003, 2007 and 2010. ADP has also gotten new features in 2005 and 2008 with the release of SQL Server. ADP has gotten new features with every release, it is NOT depecrated, it is fully supported. There are specific hotfixes released for ADP just like there are for Jet.
Bear in mind here, I am not an Access guru. I am proficient with SQL Server and .Net framework. Here is my situation:
A very large MS Access 2007 application was built for my company by a contractor.
The application has been split into two tiers BY ACCESS; there is a front end portion that holds all of the Ms Access forms, and then on the back end part, which are access tables, queries, etc., that is stored on a computer on the network.
Well, of course, there is a need to convert the data storage portion to SQL Server 2005 while keeping all of these GUI forms which were built in Ms Access. This is where I come in.
I have read a little, and have found that you can link the forms or maybe even the access tables to SQL Server tables, but I am still very unsure on what exactly can be done and how to do it.
Has anyone done this? Please comment on any capabilities, limitations, considerations about such an undertaking. Thanks!
Do not use the upsizing wizard from Access:
First, it won't work with SQL Server 2008.
Second, there is a much better tool for the job:
SSMA, the SQL Server Migration Assistant for Access which is provided for free by Microsoft.
It will do a lot for you:
move your data from Access to SQL Server
automatically link the tables back into Access
give you lots of information about potential issues due to differences in the two databases
keeps track of the changes so you can keep the two synchronised over time until your migration is complete.
I wrote a blog entry about it recently.
You have a couple of options, the upsizing wizard does a decent(ish) job of moving structure and data from access to Sql. You can then setup linked tables so your application 'should' work pretty much as it does now. Unfortunately the Sql dialect used by Access is different from Sql Server, so if there are any 'raw sql' statements in the code they may need to be changed.
As you've linked to tables though all the other features of Access, the QBE, forms and so on should work as expected. That's the simplest and probably best approach.
Another way of approaching the issue would be to migrate the data as above, and then rather than using linked tables, make use of ADO from within access. That approach is kind of famaliar if you're used to other languages/dev environments, but it's the wrong approach. Access comes with loads of built in stuff that makes working with data really easy, if you go back to use ADO/Sql you then lose many of those benefits.
I suggest start on a small part of the application - non essential data, and migrate a few tables and see how it goes. Of course you back everything up first.
Good luck
Others have suggested upsizing the Jet back end to SQL Server and linking via ODBC. In an ideal world, the app will work beautifully without needing to change anything.
In the real world, you'll find that some of your front-end objects that were engineered to be efficient and fast with a Jet back end don't actually work very well with a server database. Sometimes Jet guesses wrong and sends something really inefficient to the server. This is particular the case with mass updates of records -- in order not to hog server resources (a good thing), Jet will send a single UPDATE statement for each record (which is a bad thing for your app, since it's much, much slower than a single UPDATE statement).
What you have to do is evaluate everything in your app after you've upsized it and where there are performance problems, move some of the logic to the server. This means you may create a few server-side views, or you may use passthrough queries (to hand off the whole SQL statement to SQL Server and not letting Jet worry about it), or you may need to create stored procedures on the server (especially for update operations).
But in general, it's actually quite safe to assume that most of it will work fine without change. It likely won't be as fast as the old Access/Jet app, but that's where you can use SQL Profiler to figure out what the holdup is and re-architect things to be more efficient with the SQL Server back end.
If the Access app was already efficiently designed (e.g., forms are never bound to full tables, but instead to recordsources with restrictive WHERE clauses returning only 1 or a few records), then it will likely work pretty well. On the other hand, if it uses a lot of the bad practices seen in the Access sample databases and templates, you could run into huge problems.
It's my opinion that every Access/Jet app should be designed from the beginning with the idea that someday it will be upsized to use a server back end. This means that the Access/Jet app will actually be quite efficient and speedy, but also that when you do upsize, it will cause a minimum of pain.
This is your lowest-cost option. You're going to want to set up an ODBC connection for your Access clients pointing to your SQL Server. You can then use the (I think) "Import" option to "link" a table to the SQL Server via the ODBC source. Migrate your data from the Access tables to SQL Server, and you have your data on SQL Server in a form you can manage and back up. Important, queries can then be written on SQL Server as views and presented to the Access db as linked tables as well.
Linked Access tables work fine but I've only used them with ODBC and other databases (Firebird, MySQL, Sqlite3). Information on primary or foreign keys wasn't passing through. There were also problems with datatype interpretation: a date in MySQL is not the same thing as in Access VBA. I guess these problems aren't nearly as bad when using SQL Server.
Important Point: If you link the tables in Access to SQL Server, then EVERY table must have a Primary Key defined (Contractor? Access? Experience says that probably some tables don't have PKs). If a PK is not defined, then the Access forms will not be able to update and insert rows, rendering the tables effectively read-only.
Take a look at this Access to SQL Server migration tool. It might be one of the few, if not the ONLY, true peer-to-peer or server-to-server migration tools running as a pure Web Application. It uses mostly ASP 3.0, XML, the File System Object, the Data Dictionary Object, ADO, ADO Extensions (ADOX), the Dictionary Scripting Objects and a few other neat Microsoft techniques and technologies. If you have the Source Access Table on one server and the destination SQL Server on another server or even the same server and you want to run this as a Web Internet solution this is the product for you. This example discusses the VPASP Shopping Cart, but it will work for ANY version of Access and for ANY version of SQL Server from SQL 2000 to SQL 2008.
I am finishing up development for a generic Database Upgrade Conversion process involving the automated conversion of Access Table, View and Index Structures in a VPASP Shopping or any other Access System to their SQL Server 2005/2008 equivalents. It runs right from your server without the need for any outside assistance from external staff or consultants.
After creating a clone of your Access tables, indexes and views in SQL Server this data migration routine will selectively migrate all the data from your Access tables into your new SQL Server 2005/2008 tables without having to give out either your actual Access Database or the Table Contents or your passwords to anyone.
Here is the Reverse Engineering part of the process running against a system with almost 200 tables and almost 300 indexes and Views which is being done as a system acceptance test. Still a work in progress, but the core pieces are in place.
http://www.21stcenturyecommerce.com/SQLDDL/ViewDBTables.asp
I do the automated reverse engineering of the Access Table DDLs (Data Definition Language) and convert them into SQL equivalent DDL Statements, because table structures and even extra tables might be slightly different for every VPASP customer and for every version of VP-ASP out there.
I am finishing the actual data conversion routine which would migrate the data from Access to SQL Server after these new SQL Tables have been created including any views or indexes. It is written entirely in ASP, with VB Scripting, the File System Object (FSO), the Dictionary Object, XML, DHTML, JavaScript right now and runs pretty quickly as you will see against a SQL Server 2008 Database just for the sake of an example.
It takes perhaps 15-20 seconds to reverse engineer almost 500 different database objects. There might be a total of over 2,000 columns involved in this example for the 170 tables and 270 indexes involved.
I have even come up with a way for you to run both VPASP systems in parallel using 2 different database connection files on the same server just to be sure that orders entered on the Access System and the SQL Server system produce the same results before actual cutover to production.
John (a/k/a The SQL Dude)
sales#designersyles.biz
(This is a VP-ASP Demo Site)
Here is a technique I've heard one developer speak on. This is if you really want something like a Client-Server application.
Create .mdb/.mde frontend files distributed to each user (You'll see why).
For every table they need to perform an CRUD, have a local copy in the file in #1.
The forms stay linked to the local tables.
Write VBA code to handle the CRUD from the local tables to the SQL Server database.
Reports can be based off of temp tables created from the SQL Server (Won't be able to create temp tables in mde file I don't think).
Once you decide how you want to do this with a single form, it is not too difficult to apply the same technique to the rest. The nice thing about working with the form on a local table is you can keep a lot of the existing functionality as the existing application (Which is why they used and continue to use Access I hope). You just need to address getting data back and forth to the SQL Server.
You can continue to have linked tables, and then gradually phase them out with this technique as time and performance needs dictate.
Since each user has their own local file, they can work on their local copy of the data. Only the minimum required to do their task should ever be copied locally. Example: if they are updating a single record, the table would only have that record. When a user adds a new record, you would notice that the ID field for the record is Null, so an insert statement is needed.
I guess the local table acts like a dataset in .NET? I'm sure in some way this is an imperfect analogy.