C
Chuck L
I know this issue isn't very critical compared to Access' other, more
serious limitations and design flaws, but it drives me nuts!
Is there any way to consistently compress an mdb or mde - it looks like
MS simply picks a larger-than-necessary random number and assigns it as
the new mdb/mde size when you compact/repair. I jump back and forth
between compacting with A2K and/or A2K3, which randomly succeeds in
reducing the module size, but is there a reality-based approach to
getting module size accurate, consistent and minimal? It affects upload
time to a website, how much can be stored on a backup flash drive, etc.,
so the problem isn't entirely trivial. Besides, it just drives me crazy
that MS can't even get a module size right!!
TIA for any assistance.
Chuck
serious limitations and design flaws, but it drives me nuts!
Is there any way to consistently compress an mdb or mde - it looks like
MS simply picks a larger-than-necessary random number and assigns it as
the new mdb/mde size when you compact/repair. I jump back and forth
between compacting with A2K and/or A2K3, which randomly succeeds in
reducing the module size, but is there a reality-based approach to
getting module size accurate, consistent and minimal? It affects upload
time to a website, how much can be stored on a backup flash drive, etc.,
so the problem isn't entirely trivial. Besides, it just drives me crazy
that MS can't even get a module size right!!
TIA for any assistance.
Chuck