Access limitations

[Larry Linson]

If you mean a reliable source who states "more than 10 concurrent users will
cause a nukuler hollow cost," no. But practical experience with 2 GB dbs and
query-heavy applications with heavy usage of correlated subqueries and full
table scans will teach that it's better to go light on the number of users
running those queries concurrently in order to prevent an annoying whining
sound.

Thanks for the invite. I'll stop by the private groups when I have time.

That would be, in my experience, a significantly a-typical multiuser
application, far larger and more complex than the average. And I have often
said that, if you work hard enough at it, you can create an Access database
that will not support even one user. My take on observation and reports from
many users is that, even if not every factor is near-perfect, you can
support 30 - 70 users with adequate performance, in a normal business
database environment.

If I understood your description, that would be "heavy update" and that is
certainly one of the performance factors. It is certainly in a "light
update" and "mostly viewers" environment where you'll get adequate
performance with the reliably-reported 100+ users.

I just hate to see potential users, who aren't likely to create "2 GB dbs
and query-heavy applications with heavy usage of correlated subqueries and
full table scans", scared away by quoting the users that can be supported by
a heavy-use, complex application, as though that were normal.

In your use of "full-table scans", what do you mean? That is, how are you
"scanning" -- query, VBA code, ???

Yes, drop in to the private MVP newsgroup for Access when you get the
opportunity. Information on accessing it and password info are in the
private MVP website.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Office Access MVP

 

[延末]

No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that he should post to
the MVP newsgroup, which wouldn't in any way compromise his position
with his employer.


You assumed the wrong meaning of what I wrote. Remember, that all
Larry asked was that he post in the MVP newsgroup, *not* that he ID
himself publicly. And it was to *that* that I found your paraphrase
of Chris's situation an unpersuasive respose.