mytfein
asked on
Access 2010: Career questions (1)
Hi EE,
Am migrating from A2003 to A2010.
My work is continuing to run under A2010 as mdb.
I did have to modify some vba to get a couple mdbs to work.
a) Is there any downfall to not having converted them to accdb
b) do you have books to recommend on A2010 and vba and it's NEW features
c) do you have webpages to recommend on new A2010 features
tx, sandra
Am migrating from A2003 to A2010.
My work is continuing to run under A2010 as mdb.
I did have to modify some vba to get a couple mdbs to work.
a) Is there any downfall to not having converted them to accdb
b) do you have books to recommend on A2010 and vba and it's NEW features
c) do you have webpages to recommend on new A2010 features
tx, sandra
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
great! tx so much Jim!
<<Are you aware of this or are we missing something ?>>
Yes am aware. The attachment data type includes compression and there is an option setting to control it, but they will still chew up space.
Each attachment element is also a separate record. When you use the attachment type, behind the curtain it's creating a child table. So that maskes it easier for non-developers to use attachments, but a developer would store things outside the DB.
Jim.
Yes am aware. The attachment data type includes compression and there is an option setting to control it, but they will still chew up space.
Each attachment element is also a separate record. When you use the attachment type, behind the curtain it's creating a child table. So that maskes it easier for non-developers to use attachments, but a developer would store things outside the DB.
Jim.
Where is that setting ?
"but a developer would store things outside the DB."
Sure, but in doing so ... seems you would lose whatever compression is being done to reduce bloat.
The question came up recently at work about "can we store PDFs', Images ... in the 'account record' ..."
So, we looked into the Attachment data type.
After the (preliminary) testing ... it looks as if we will need to implement a Windows Explorer option ... click a button and point to the documents related to at account (fortunately there is a naming convention starting with the auto counter ID) ...
Just feel I am missing something. But if it was just a convenience for non-developers, then I get it.
Probably could look into DBPIx also .. but using that would be a long shot at work.\
thx
"but a developer would store things outside the DB."
Sure, but in doing so ... seems you would lose whatever compression is being done to reduce bloat.
The question came up recently at work about "can we store PDFs', Images ... in the 'account record' ..."
So, we looked into the Attachment data type.
After the (preliminary) testing ... it looks as if we will need to implement a Windows Explorer option ... click a button and point to the documents related to at account (fortunately there is a naming convention starting with the auto counter ID) ...
Just feel I am missing something. But if it was just a convenience for non-developers, then I get it.
Probably could look into DBPIx also .. but using that would be a long shot at work.\
thx
Joe,
<<Where is that setting ?>>
Under current db, images stored as .BMP's (2003 and prior behavior) or compressed.
That's what most do. Some use the hyperlink data type to point to the file.
<<Just feel I am missing something. But if it was just a convenience for non-developers, then I get it.>>
Your not. That's all it was. Microsoft was trying to take some of the more complex tasks and simplify them. Multi-Value fields are nothing more than a one to many setup, the child table having a single field per record, which any developer can do blind folded.
Probably, but I'd give it a shot. It's worth it.
Jim.
<<Where is that setting ?>>
Under current db, images stored as .BMP's (2003 and prior behavior) or compressed.
After the (preliminary) testing ... it looks as if we will need to implement a Windows Explorer option ... click a button and point to the documents related to at account (fortunately there is a naming convention starting with the auto counter ID) ...
That's what most do. Some use the hyperlink data type to point to the file.
<<Just feel I am missing something. But if it was just a convenience for non-developers, then I get it.>>
Your not. That's all it was. Microsoft was trying to take some of the more complex tasks and simplify them. Multi-Value fields are nothing more than a one to many setup, the child table having a single field per record, which any developer can do blind folded.
Probably could look into DBPIx also .. but using that would be a long shot at work.\
Probably, but I'd give it a shot. It's worth it.
Jim.
OK ... thanks Jim ... appreciate the info.
Will contact you via eMail re latest EE UI ...
Will contact you via eMail re latest EE UI ...
Jim ... we ran some tests on Attachment data types at work. Seems bloating renders them useless. For example, of you attach a 50MB PDF, the db grows by approximately that size. Similar for images. Are you aware of this or are we missing something ?
Seems really no difference in using the OLE Object (embedded) data type.
</slightly OT>