Decompile CAUSES bloat in Access 2002!

Mark Hammer

unread,

Jun 24, 2002, 1:41:16 AM6/24/02

to

Here I've been trying to figure out why my Access 2002 front-end is growing
despite compact, decompile, and my best attempt at clean coding practice.

Kept thinking it was something that was my fault.

Then it occurred to me to do an experiment: import some code into a blank
mdb, and do a few rounds of compile / decompile to see what happens. I
chose to import the code only from Ch17.mdb from the Access 2002 Desktop
Developer's Handbook by Ken Getz et al for my test. Here are the results:

Size Action to create it
------ ------------------------------------
104K New blank Access 2002 mdb file, BloatTest01.mdb
588K Import 16 modules and 4 class modules only
808K Add one reference (DAO3.6) and compile
1,220K Decompile
1,340K Compile, save, compact
1,760K Decompile
1,880K Compile, save, compact
2,288K Decompile
2,408K Compile, save, compact
100K New blank mdb, BloatTest02.mdb
904K Import all modules from BloatTest01.mdb
584K Compact
1,016K Decompile BloatTest02.mdb
1,236K Compile, save, compact
1,656K Decompile
1,804K Compile, save, compact

In the past, with A2K and A97, I've used decompile to reduce the size of
bloated mdb files.

No more, I guess.

Anybody got a clue about what's happening here, and what to do about it?

Mark Hammer
Lake Oswego, Oregon, US

Darla Hogenson

unread,

Jun 24, 2002, 5:26:07 PM6/24/02

to

Mark,

By any chance are you using the Access 2002 file format? If so, one reason
for the increase in size is the new save model for compiled code in Access
2002 file format.

Code that is compiled are stored in a new system table, every time you add
additional Modules or code behind forms/reports the database will increase
in size. This is a different save on the code then an Access 2000 file
format. When you open the file with the /decompile, you once again are
placing entries into the system table, which again increases the database
size. In my testing, I have also found if you Compile and then Save, which
is typical, you can get additional entries in the system tables, where as
you save and then compile, you may not get the entries.

Microsoft is aware of the is behavior with Access 2002 file format,
however, there has not been a fix for the problem.

About the only way I can really recommend that you remove the extra entries
for code that you have removed from your database is to

1. Create a new database container,
2. Import the objects into the new container,

I believe you have already indicated this is the steps that you do. I wish
I had better news for you. In the future if Microsoft has a fix for the
problem with and Access 2002 file format, we will post the information in
our Knowledgebase.

Thank you

Darla Hogenson
Microsoft

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

tom

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 9:52:46 AM7/8/02

to

Darla,

It would be *very handy* if Microsoft would post both an
acknowledgement and a detailed explanation of this behavior in the
Knowledgebase, even before there is a solution for it.

-Tom

> By any chance are you using the Access 2002 file format? If so, one reason
> for the increase in size is the new save model for compiled code in Access
> 2002 file format.

Darla Hogenson

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 4:09:15 PM7/9/02

to

Tom,

Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately, I do not think there will be
an article published until all the research is done. The article as it
stands now would be very incomplete and not helpful. As soon as our
development team has an answer or a resolution to the problem, I will
complete the article and submit it to our Knowledgebase team.

Thanks

Darla Hogenson
Microsoft

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

--------------------
| From: t...@nuws.com (tom)
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.access.formscoding
| Subject: Re: Decompile CAUSES bloat in Access 2002!
| Date: 8 Jul 2002 06:52:46 -0700
| Organization: http://groups.google.com/
| Lines: 14
| Message-ID: <c17f6324.02070...@posting.google.com>
| References: <uajlkG0GCHA.1716@tkmsftngp13> <ig$9yW8GCHA.1648@cpmsftngxa07>
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.103.215.25
| Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
| X-Trace: posting.google.com 1026136367 23376 127.0.0.1 (8 Jul 2002
13:52:47 GMT)
| X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
| NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Jul 2002 13:52:47 GMT
| Path:
cpmsftngxa08!cppssbbsa01.microsoft.com!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!n
ewsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.news2me.com!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-02
!sn-xit-06!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
| Xref: cpmsftngxa08 microsoft.public.access.formscoding:138590
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.access.formscoding

tom

unread,

Jul 11, 2002, 12:58:32 PM7/11/02

to

Hey All,

I tried creating a new database and importing all my objects in
order to reduce bloat (they were already as compacted as they were
going to get). Here's what I got for my 2 .mdb's (after compiling and
compacting the new ones):

* 33 MB --> 13 MB
* 18 MB --> 6 MB

And, for the .mde versions of these databases:

* 15 MB --> 10 MB
* 6 MB --> 5 MB

A sizable reduction... We'll see how fast they grow! I am now
keeping an empty database container ready with all my references and
startup options set to use as a starting point when doing this again.

Perhaps there will be a fix for this soon... (couldn't Compact
handle this?)

-Tom

Darla Hogenson

unread,

Jul 12, 2002, 5:58:09 PM7/12/02

to

The issue is how compiled code is stored in the system tables in Access
2002 file format. Yes I believe the compact should take care of the extra
entries, but unfortunately this is not always the case.

The new database container is recommend suggestion at this point. I am
really trying to push for a change in behavior, but I have no estimated
time at this point.

Also, if you are going to distribute your database, I would recommend a MDE
file as this also removes entries from the system tables.

I have added this newsgroup thread to my list of similar issues.

Sorry I did not have better news for you,

Darla Hogenson
Microsoft

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

--------------------
| From: t...@nuws.com (tom)
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.access.formscoding
| Subject: Re: Decompile CAUSES bloat in Access 2002!

| Date: 11 Jul 2002 09:58:32 -0700
| Organization: http://groups.google.com/
| Lines: 23
| Message-ID: <c17f6324.02071...@posting.google.com>
| References: <uajlkG0GCHA.1716@tkmsftngp13>
<ig$9yW8GCHA.1648@cpmsftngxa07>
<c17f6324.02070...@posting.google.com>
<uv2ExR4JCHA.5916@cpmsftngxa07>

| NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.103.215.25
| Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

| X-Trace: posting.google.com 1026406713 16667 127.0.0.1 (11 Jul 2002
16:58:33 GMT)
| X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
| NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Jul 2002 16:58:33 GMT
| Path:
cpmsftngxa07!tkmsftngp01!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.m
axwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.soca
l.rr.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-04!supernews.com!po
stnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
| Xref: cpmsftngxa07 microsoft.public.access.formscoding:139229
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.access.formscoding

tom

unread,

Jul 13, 2002, 1:30:15 AM7/13/02

to

Darla,

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your thoroughness. It would be
nice for this problem to be resolved, BUT it's not the end of the
world as this workaround seems to clear things up (makes me wonder
about people developing under source control, though).

> Also, if you are going to distribute your database, I would recommend a MDE
> file as this also removes entries from the system tables.

Hmmm.... as you can see from my prior posting, creating a new db
container also helped the MDE shrink by a third (15 MB --> 10 MB), so
I don't know that MDE creation is so clean.

-Tom

Darla Hogenson

unread,

Jul 15, 2002, 4:24:04 PM7/15/02

to

Glad the MDE cleaned up part of the problem. I have added this thread to
the impacted customers though so our development team can get a full
understanding of the impact.

Darla Hogenson
Microsoft

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

--------------------
| From: t...@nuws.com (tom)
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.access.formscoding
| Subject: Re: Decompile CAUSES bloat in Access 2002!

| Date: 12 Jul 2002 22:30:15 -0700
| Organization: http://groups.google.com/
| Lines: 15

| Message-ID: <c17f6324.02071...@posting.google.com>
| References: <uajlkG0GCHA.1716@tkmsftngp13>
<ig$9yW8GCHA.1648@cpmsftngxa07>
<c17f6324.02070...@posting.google.com>
<uv2ExR4JCHA.5916@cpmsftngxa07>

<c17f6324.02071...@posting.google.com>
<9t$io8eKCHA.2016@cpmsftngxa07>

| NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.103.215.25
| Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

| X-Trace: posting.google.com 1026538216 23067 127.0.0.1 (13 Jul 2002
05:30:16 GMT)
| X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
| NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Jul 2002 05:30:16 GMT
| Path:
cpmsftngxa07!tkmsftngp01!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.
de!t-online.de!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-01!sn
-xit-08!sn-xit-04!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
| Xref: cpmsftngxa07 microsoft.public.access.formscoding:139383
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.access.formscoding