Access 2003 database size limitation

  • Thread starter Thread starter canuckwolf
  • Start date Start date
C

canuckwolf

Does anyone know what the database size limitation is in
Access 2003? I currently use Access 97 which has a
database size limit of 1 Gig.

Thanks

Roland
 
Does anyone know what the database size limitation is in
Access 2003? I currently use Access 97 which has a
database size limit of 1 Gig.
Click to expand...

The good news is that it's risen to 2 Gbyte.

The bad news is that it uses UNICODE instead of ASCII by default, so
the same data takes twice as much room. Functionally, if you're
pushing the size limit in 97 you'll be pushing it in later versions as
well. If you are storing pictures in the database, consider NOT doing
so - Access is horribly inefficient at such; if you have a gigabyte of
actual text data, you should be seriously considering a client-server
solution such as SQL/Server, Oracle, or MySQL (with an Access
frontend).
 
John Vinson said:
The good news is that it's risen to 2 Gbyte.

The bad news is that it uses UNICODE instead of ASCII by default, so
the same data takes twice as much room.
Click to expand...

It's been my experience that the A2000 format MDB takes about 30% more
space than the A97 format. So there is room to grow.

However, as you point out, it is quite questionable why you'd be near
1 Gb in the first place. And that storing graphics is likely a major
reason and not a good idea.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
 
Tony Toews said:
It's been my experience that the A2000 format MDB takes about 30% more
space than the A97 format. So there is room to grow.
Click to expand...

Only text (and memo) fields are affected by the Unicode issue, so data won't
actually take up twice as much space unless it consists entirely of text
fields.

Text fields in Access 2000 and later also have a Unicode compression
property which should reduce the space occupied by text to some degree, but
I can't say how much. My understanding is that the amount of compression
would vary depending on the content of the fields. Text that contains no
extended characters will, as I understand it, compress differently from text
that does contain extended characters.

So, the increase to 2GB, along with the use of Unicode, should mean that
there is in fact some increase in capacity, but it is not possible to say
exactly how much. It will vary depending on how many of the fields are text
fields, whether Unicode compression is enabled on some or all text fields,
and the actual content of the text fields.
 
Back
Top