I have a number of databases, all written in Access 2000.

On one client site the systems administrator is wanting to upgrade
their server to Server 2008 and their Office to 2010.

He comments: "The system is slow at the moment even with just one user
working on it, are there any performance increases that can be
achieved with Office 2010?"

I have done all the normal things that are advised such as maintaining
a permanent connection etc. I have two questions:

1 will an Access 2000 .mdb file run without problems under Office
2010?

2 does Office 2010 offer any specific performance improvement
opportunities?

"Jim Devenish" <internet.shopping (AT) foobox (DOT) com> wrote

It should. You may have some problems with ActiveX controls. It's best to
try it first.

Not that I'm aware of. In fact performance may be slightly worse if run on
the same machines because Office 2010 uses more resources. There are seveal
things that you can do to improve performance:

http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performancefaq.htm

Also, consider archiving data which is nor longer needed on a frequent
basis. I simply compact the database, and make a copy. Then I delete the
data I no longer need to see and compact the database again. The copy in a
safe place assures access to the old data if necessary.

--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.accessmvp.com
http://www.mvps.org/access
Co-author: "Access Solutions", published by Wiley

On Nov 5, 4:44*pm, "Arvin Meyer" <arv... (AT) invalid (DOT) org> wrote:
Many thanks Arvin.

I have already followed the advice in the link you give.

It is likely that the server will be upgraded but not the client
machines that contain the front-ends.

I should also have checked: the database creates Word documents and
includes address details by mail merge with data from the database; it
also, on occasion creates Excel spreadsheets.

Is it possible that these activities are adversely affected by A2010?

"Arvin Meyer" <arvinm (AT) invalid (DOT) org> wrote in
news:wt6dneSno_4dqUnRnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d (AT) earthlink (DOT) com:

I would recommend against this, unless the data sets are 100s of
thousands of records, and once archived, you're down to fewer than
100K. It just isn't that much of a performance hit to query on large
numbers of records if you've properly indexed them, and archiving
introduces all sorts of potential problems (depending on the type of
data, of course).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
contact via website only http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

Jim Devenish <internet.shopping (AT) foobox (DOT) com> wrote in
news:e35618b2-e59a-461e-b4ad-8193fc04f9d0 (AT) l32g2000yqc (DOT) googlegroups.co
m:

The server is the problem, so you need to look into issues with
networking and file sharing. Perhaps the old OpLocks problem has
recurred?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
contact via website only http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

On Nov 5, 9:46*pm, "David-W-Fenton" <NoEm... (AT) SeeSignature (DOT) invalid>
wrote:
Not knowing what OpLocks are, let alone the 'old OpLocks problem', I
did a search and found this article:
http://www.superbase.com/services_te...rt_oplocks.htm

Is what it says correct? and if so, is the advice given at the end
worth taking?

Should I pass this on to the systems man? or will his proposal to
upgrade to Server 2008 be do the trick?

On Nov 5, 9:46*pm, "David-W-Fenton" <NoEm... (AT) SeeSignature (DOT) invalid>
wrote:
That's good to know. The thought of archiving 'old' records does not
please me. There are many links between tables and working out what
to archive is not straightforward.

I may run my eye over the indexes. It is a long time since I checked
them fully.

On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:17:01 -0700 (PDT), Jim Devenish
<internet.shopping (AT) foobox (DOT) com> wrote:

Also consider what happens when you make a schema change to the
current tables but forget to make it to the archived tables.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files
updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/

Jim Devenish <internet.shopping (AT) foobox (DOT) com> wrote in
news:4879cf64-6000-48bd-86c4-536b13226add (AT) r4g2000prj (DOT) googlegroups.com
:

That's quite a nice detailed article, though not entirely specific
to Access, and fairly specific to its time frame.

For the Access-specific issues (and a bit more recent), see this:

http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/corr...sesoplocks.htm

There's also an issue with the new networking stack introduced with
Windows Vista and, I believe, used in Windows Server 2008, but I
always forget what the issue is and how it's rectified. Maybe
somebody can chime in here with that.

Hmm. I thought Server 2008 was already in place, and that was
correlated with the appearance of the problem. Maybe this is just
not relevant, particularly since nothing I've read is entirely
specific to Server 2008.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
contact via website only http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"David-W-Fenton" <NoEmail (AT) SeeSignature (DOT) invalid> wrote

While I would agree that a well indexed database increases performance, and
I'd also agree that archiving is the last resort after following all the
hints in Tony Toews' performance FAQ. If extremely poor performance is still
a problem and you can reduce by half (or more) the records you must search
and act upon, you can always improve performance by archiving that many
records, performance will be improved by approximately the percentage of the
number of records that you've reduced. It doesn't make much sense on a 5
second query done 10 times a day, or even a 1 minute query done once per
day. But it sure makes a lot of sense if a 15 second query is run 30 times a
day and the archive may not be needed more than once or twice a year (or
less).
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.accessmvp.com
http://www.mvps.org/access
Co-author: "Access Solutions", published by Wiley