Re: Access 2003 number of records
- From: "Mercury" <me@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 13:20:01 +1300
Last I new the limit was the file size of the database itself. AFAIK this
has not changed from 2GB so if you have tiny records you can have a huge
number, with fat records - obviously nowhere near as may.
The performance of the database in Access is much the same as any other
DBMS - poorly designed = slow, well designed = quick. The number of records
in a table is very much irrelevant to performance so long as the design is
good.
I wrote a DBMS cross-load that used MS Access DB's as the work interface
until each was full - one side just created DB's with translated and
verified content, the other picked up the DB's read them and loaded them
into what became a 56GB Oracle DB. Each Access DB had integrity and a
complex table structure and the performance was stunning - Access is very
fast when the db design is good & coded correspondingly.
"Marc" <msoleda2001@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1141396323.392028.43020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi all,
I'm wondering if there's a limit/recommendation in the number of
records
that it can be inserted in an Access 2003 table before the performance
is
affected considerably. I know that in Access 200 the limit was around
100,000
records but I'd like to know it for Access 2003.
thanks in advance,
Marc Soleda
.
- References:
- Access 2003 number of records
- From: Marc
- Access 2003 number of records
- Prev by Date: kill all documents
- Next by Date: Re: Outputting a CString to File Problem
- Previous by thread: Access 2003 number of records
- Next by thread: Re: Access 2003 number of records
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
