Suggestions on speeding up Access

[David W. Fenton]

Remind me at some point in the future to explain what Replication
in Access is and how it is completely opposite of what it is in
SQL. There is a lot of back and forth arguments on this board
that demonstrates that SQL DBAs don't know about Access and Access
DBAs need to learn about SQL.

Next time you are in a .mdb file, go to Tools>Replication>Create
Replica. It is a completely different process that you think and
totally opposite of SQL.

You complain that Access folks don't seem to know about SQL Server
and SQL Server folds don't seem to know about Access, yet what you
write above shows that you are guilty of exactly the crime you are
claiming that the rest of us have committed. The comments above
about replication show that you really don't have much concept of
Jet replication at all, nor that it is a perfectly robust and fully
developed technology that existed long before SQL Server had full
merge replication. Indeed, my understanding is that the SQL Server
team that implemented full merge replication (I think it was SQL
Server 7?) drew some of its personnel from the Jet replication
group. There's solid reason for that because the problems of
replication are the same with any database engine.

You do know that since Jet 4 an MDB can participate as a merge
subscriber in a SQL Server replicated database, i.e., using
heterogeous replication? This is one of the reasons that Jet 4 and
SQL Server now share the same replication conflict resolver.

You seem not to know these things, which makes your accusations of
ignorance against others rather hypocritical.

 

[David W. Fenton]

Since you know Access like the back of you hand,

Aaron doesn't actually know anything at all.

then you already understand
why an Access DBA who does not know SQL (and visa versa) would be
so confused about replication when in the two programs they are
completely opposite of each other. I think that makes them
homonyms - same word, completely different meaning.

Aaron knows nothing about either type of replication.

Why would you make the assumption that two completely different
database engines would be identical in their implementation of
replication? That seems pretty dumb to me!