MDE / MDB Split Databases best way to go?

Hi,

I've been asked to amend an Access 2002 DB that has been used by users
using the MDE version. I have, what seems to be the original MDB
version containing all the front end stuff but, by now, the tables are
way out of date.

They want me to make some changes to the database and keep their
current data..

My idea to get round this problem was to split both the MDB (out of
date) and MDE (up to date) version of the databases so that the tables
are linking to the back end tables.

I would then change the links in the MDB DB to use the MDE back end
database (so they access the most up to date data).

I then make my changes to the MDB DB (including table changes, forms,
reports etc).

After I have made my changes I can then create a new MDE DB which is
linked to the same back end data.

Will this work OK?

Is there anyway to unsplit the data so my final database is a single
MDE file rather than an MDE file and a back end MDB file?

Re: MDE / MDB Split Databases best way to go?

The reason I would like to do this (unsplit the data) is that the DB
is accesses from various sites via shared resources and, to make it
easier, I would like to have it all in one DB.

Re: MDE / MDB Split Databases best way to go?

"John Google" schreef in bericht =
news:93e6808d-45b5-4662-88b9-f53d60a2b0e0@a22g2000hsc.google groups.com...=

> The reason I would like to do this (unsplit the data) is that the DB
> is accesses from various sites via shared resources and, to make it
> easier, I would like to have it all in one DB.

Bad idea IMO.

One of the main advantages of using a split db (FE-BE) is that you can =
easily make changes and send them an update...

Also it is my opinion (and best practice to prevent corruption) that...
--Only the BE should be used by all users.=20
--Each user should have his/hers own copy of the FE.

Arno R

Re: MDE / MDB Split Databases best way to go?

On Apr 15, 4:56=A0pm, John Google wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been asked to amend an Access 2002 DB that has been used by users
> using the MDE version. I have, what seems to be the original MDB
> version containing all the front end stuff but, by now, the tables are
> way out of date.
>
> They want me to make some changes to the database and keep their
> current data..
>
> My idea to get round this problem was to split both the MDB (out of
> date) and MDE (up to date) version of the databases so that the tables
> are linking to the back end tables.
>
> I would then change the links in the MDB DB to use the MDE back end
> database (so they access the most up to date data).
>
> I then make my changes to the MDB DB (including table changes, forms,
> reports etc).
>
> After I have made my changes I can then create a new MDE DB which is
> linked to the same back end data.
>
> Will this work OK?
>
> Is there anyway to unsplit the data so my final database is a single
> MDE file rather than an MDE file and a back end MDB file?

The database as it exists now is a single MDE containing both data
(the Tables) and the interface (the Forms, Reports) and the logic (the
code and queries)?

So each of the users does not have his or her own copy.

I bet there are regular contributors here who will have some advice on
how to achieve the greatest effectiveness and efficiency while
amending it. That advice, no doubt, will include suggestions about
front-end, back-end.
I've used SQL_Server as a back-end for several years, so I'll yield to
those who are more current.

Re: MDE / MDB Split Databases best way to go?

On 15 Apr, 23:49, lyle wrote:
> On Apr 15, 4:56=A0pm, John Google wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I've been asked to amend an Access 2002 DB that has been used by users
> > using the MDE version. I have, what seems to be the original MDB
> > version containing all the front end stuff but, by now, the tables are
> > way out of date.
>
> > They want me to make some changes to the database and keep their
> > current data..
>
> > My idea to get round this problem was to split both the MDB (out of
> > date) and MDE (up to date) version of the databases so that the tables
> > are linking to the back end tables.
>
> > I would then change the links in the MDB DB to use the MDE back end
> > database (so they access the most up to date data).
>
> > I then make my changes to the MDB DB (including table changes, forms,
> > reports etc).
>
> > After I have made my changes I can then create a new MDE DB which is
> > linked to the same back end data.
>
> > Will this work OK?
>
> > Is there anyway to unsplit the data so my final database is a single
> > MDE file rather than an MDE file and a back end MDB file?
>
> The database as it exists now is a single MDE containing both data
> (the Tables) and the interface (the Forms, Reports) and the logic (the
> code and queries)?
>
> So each of the users does not have his or her own copy.
>
> I bet there are regular contributors here who will have some advice on
> how to achieve the greatest effectiveness and efficiency while
> amending it. That advice, no doubt, will include suggestions about
> front-end, back-end.
> I've used SQL_Server as a back-end for several years, so I'll yield to
> those who are more current.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's correct.

The MDE file is on a shared drive. The users simply have a link on
their desktop to open the MDE file.

Re: MDE / MDB Split Databases best way to go?

On 15 Apr, 23:01, "Arno R" wrote:
> "John Google" schreef in berichtnews:93e6808d-45b5-4662-88b9-f53d60a2b0e0@a22g2000hsc .googlegroups.com...
>
> > The reason I would like to do this (unsplit the data) is that the DB
> > is accesses from various sites via shared resources and, to make it
> > easier, I would like to have it all in one DB.
>
> Bad idea IMO.
>
> One of the main advantages of using a split db (FE-BE) is that you can easily make changes and send them an update...
>
> Also it is my opinion (and best practice to prevent corruption) that...
> --Only the BE should be used by all users.
> --Each user should have his/hers own copy of the FE.
>
> Arno R

Amo,

Do you mean that the back end should be on a shared drive but the MDE
file should be installed on each user's PC? At the moment the MDE file
is on a shared drive and each user has a link to it on their desktop.

If I split the database and have the MDE and the back end DB on the
shared drive, does this mean that there may be corruptions in the
files?

Re: MDE / MDB Split Databases best way to go?

"John Google" schreef in bericht =
news:e6a22868-58ce-41e0-b010-2da04ed5f5a5@59g2000hsb.googleg roups.com...
> On 15 Apr, 23:01, "Arno R" wrote:
>> "John Google" schreef in =
berichtnews:93e6808d-45b5-4662-88b9-f53d60a2b0e0@a22g2000hsc .googlegroups=
..com...
>>
>> > The reason I would like to do this (unsplit the data) is that the =
DB
>> > is accesses from various sites via shared resources and, to make it
>> > easier, I would like to have it all in one DB.
>>
>> Bad idea IMO.
>>
>> One of the main advantages of using a split db (FE-BE) is that you =
can easily make changes and send them an update...
>>
>> Also it is my opinion (and best practice to prevent corruption) =
that...
>> --Only the BE should be used by all users.
>> --Each user should have his/hers own copy of the FE.
>>
>> Arno R
>=20
> Amo,
>=20
> Do you mean that the back end should be on a shared drive but the MDE
> file should be installed on each user's PC?=20

Yes, That is what I mean indeed.

> If I split the database and have the MDE and the back end DB on the
> shared drive, does this mean that there may be corruptions in the
> files?

When an Access database is used by more people simultaneausly then yes =
ther e is a greater risk.
Lots of warnings here in this group for that setup. Just Google this =
group for that.

For instance network issues can cause an Access app to fail and get =
corrupted.=20
It is better to have this problem on a single workstation.

I did have FE-corruption issues once in a while, and copying the FE from =
another workstation always solved the problem.

Arno R

Re: MDE / MDB Split Databases best way to go?

John Google wrote:

>Do you mean that the back end should be on a shared drive but the MDE
>file should be installed on each user's PC? At the moment the MDE file
>is on a shared drive and each user has a link to it on their desktop.
>
>If I split the database and have the MDE and the back end DB on the
>shared drive, does this mean that there may be corruptions in the
>files?

Yes, what Arno said.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

Re: MDE / MDB Split Databases best way to go?

On 17 Apr, 19:22, "Tony Toews [MVP]" wrote:
> John Google wrote:
> >Do you mean that the back end should be on a shared drive but the MDE
> >file should be installed on each user's PC? At the moment the MDE file
> >is on a shared drive and each user has a link to it on their desktop.
>
> >If I split the database and have the MDE and the back end DB on the
> >shared drive, does this mean that there may be corruptions in the
> >files?
>
> Yes, what Arno said.
>
> Tony
> --
> Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
> =A0 =A0Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
> read the entire thread of messages.
> =A0 =A0Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems athttp://w=
ww.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
> =A0 =A0Tony's Microsoft Access Blog -http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

Thanks Tony and Amo.