Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
microsoft.public.access
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Suggestions on speeding up Access
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
David W. Fenton  
View profile  
 More options Apr 27 2007, 4:06 pm
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.access
From: "David W. Fenton" <XXXuse...@dfenton.com.invalid>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:06:03 -0500
Local: Fri, Apr 27 2007 4:06 pm
Subject: Re: Suggestions on speeding up Access
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Archidrb <Archi...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
news:FA5A0F90-8306-46A6-8B54-FADF0BC82D47@microsoft.com:

> 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                  http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com    http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google