Access database over a network

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luke Bellamy
  • Start date Start date
L

Luke Bellamy

I have an Access 2K2 front end that accesses file across a network.
Can anyone please confirm for me that referencing these files via a
drive mapping is faster than using a UNC?
Also I believe Access checks the security on each directory when
retrieving data so the smaller the directory structure the better the
performance. Is this correct?

Thankyou
 
Drive mappings aren't any faster than UNC from my observations, but UNC is
more convenient. A shorter path is faster. Keeping a connection open on
the file makes a huge difference (i.e., open a recordset on your 1st table
immediately after it is relinked).
 
I agree with Paul's observations. Tony Toews has several pages worth visiting, including one
that outlines how to keep a persistent connection:

Keep a persistent connection open
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performanceldblocking.htm

Microsoft Access Performance FAQ
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performancefaq.htm


Tom
___________________________________________


Drive mappings aren't any faster than UNC from my observations, but UNC is
more convenient. A shorter path is faster. Keeping a connection open on
the file makes a huge difference (i.e., open a recordset on your 1st table
immediately after it is relinked).

--
Paul Overway
Logico Solutions, LLC
www.logico-solutions.com

___________________________________________


I have an Access 2K2 front end that accesses file across a network.
Can anyone please confirm for me that referencing these files via a
drive mapping is faster than using a UNC?
Also I believe Access checks the security on each directory when
retrieving data so the smaller the directory structure the better the
performance. Is this correct?

Thankyou
 
Thanks guys... I have previously applied all Tony's performance tips so
I'm on track.
My line of thinking was with a drive mapping instead of a UNC access
would not have to "resolve" the name/location on the network and thus
a drive mapping would be faster. Even if this is so it sounds like the
time to do this is insignificant.

Thanks again
 
Back
Top