Access 2007 Limits

re: Access 2007 Limits

joep3joep3 — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:21:49 GMT

I have been bit by the right click of death when in the properties window. Worst yet is the fact that save on compile is gone. I have lost more work with 2007 than any other. So I have to remember to save before I run. It seems to me you guys are going backward. Please feel free to let me know how I can autosave on compile. Which used to be a feature when the program didn't hang on demand...

re: Access 2007 Limits

SimonMoon — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:27:46 GMT

I wasn't able to find this connected on any of the Office Support dialogues, but I came to a dead end on the database size and got this error message trying to run a query: "Cannot open database 'yaddayadda'. It may not be a database that your application recognizes, or the file may be corrupt"...which is crap, its not corrupt, just too big.

re: Access 2007 Limits

mk — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:20:52 GMT

There is one reason why I dread the thought of Access going south to be replaced by a VB express/SQL express package. Continuous forms, I repeat, continuous forms. You never know just how awesome those are until you have tried to hack a datagrid in vb.net. Datagrids bite. Even with the lack of any truly shiny new features, Access is the best database app available with the exception of Oracle Developer (which is quite a bit more expensive)

re: Access 2007 Limits

Skip — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:28:04 GMT

Dissapointed to find out that sharepoint list do not support referential integrity... ?????

re: Access 2007 Limits

Rick Weideman — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:02:04 GMT

I was hoping that ACCESS 2007 would be written in 64 bit so databases could be larger than 2GB. I guess that was wishful thinking. If SQL was easier to use we wouldn't need for ACCESS to do it. As it is, for anyone with my same problems, linking to the txt flat file has afforded me some extra life on ACCESS. Please come out with a 64bit version of ACCESS.

PS. Improving the ACCESS help feature was important. thx

re: Access 2007 Limits

Mike — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:20:15 GMT

Eric, The limits you post DO NOT APPLY to tables stored in SharePoint. Please post the limts (number and data type of columns) for SharePoint storage. For example you can have a maximum of 16 dates, 16 yes/no (bit), columns, etc. when Access is used with SharePoint.

re: Access 2007 Limits

Joel — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:37:20 GMT

What about Access PROJECTS (.adp)? Can they work with SQL Server 2005? Access 2003 Projects can no longer use Access designers on SQL 2005 databases, and apparently never will be able to (any more than you can use Access 2000 to work with SQL Server 2000 in this regard: you either have to use Access 2002/XP or 2003). I know that SQL Server 2005 Management Studio is preferred, but there are still things that are much easier to do in Access Projects. For instance, suppose I have a Table that is identical to a new Table I need, except for a field or two. In Access, I simply Copy and Paste, and the Paste dialog asks me if I want to copy the Structure only, Structure and Data, or Data into another existing Table. I say Structure, and voila! I have a new Table with the same structure as the existing one, complete with all Extended Properties set up for things such as Lookups (dropdowns) even in Datasheet view (reduces the need to develop Forms for data entry), checkboxes for Bit fields, Sub-Datasheets, etc. I simply make whatever changes are needed in the new Table! Do you have any idea how many hoops one has to jump through to do the same thing in SQL Server 2005 Management Studio, either Express or full version? I tried to do it, and the resulting Table seems to be okay in SQL Server, but in Access (2003) cannot even be opened in Datasheet mode! Attempts to do so displays “The Stored Procedure has executed successfully, but returned no records.” — say WHAT!? It isn’t even a Stored Procedure! It’s a friggin’ TABLE!! I tried to test this using Test Drive, but the Test Drive copy of Access didn’t seem to have Projects, or maybe had them disabled for security reasons. Doing a File / New would only allow the creation of a blank Access 2007 (Jet) Database, not a Project, even if I tried to force the “.adp” extension on the filename. Before I spend hours downloading the demo (not to mention going through the rigamarole to pay the $1.50 service fee) or $4.95 to order the CD, I’d like a simple, straightforward answer to this question.

re: Access 2007 Limits

Chris — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 22:18:06 GMT

What about replication and particularly internet replication

re: Access 2007 Limits

Walker — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 07:39:57 GMT

I have a couple of technical questions that will help me decide if I am to continue plans to build a system in Access 2003 with SQLServer 2005 hosting the db which will be upgraded to Access 2007 once it becomes available. I am putting this here as reading over the comments above I am becoming uncomfortable about proceding with my next project, but I have not been able to find antthing anywhere that address what are a few key issues for me. Opinion are appreciated. But I would also like links to offical MS advise/recommendations as I have struggled to find any myself. So here they are. 1. What is the storage size or footprint within the Access db of a linked table in terms of the 2gb limit for access objects. All I read in my investigation is that is is less than if the table was in Access itself. But I have not been able to find any specifics or the means to calculate it if it is dependancies on physical characterists of the linked table itself. 2. If I was, for example, to derive values based on what is stored in a link table during runtime, is it possible to do this on the SQL Server side and have Access just pick up the result, or do I have to do the calc in Access ? 3. How are Access limits effected by doing calcuation during run time vs having the values pre calcuated in the linked table ? That is, how does the increased size of the linked table effect performance and throughput ?

re: Access 2007 Limits

Jake — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 06:49:13 GMT

Agree with all the above comments. Access has passed it's sell by date and is looking very aged underneath the cover. Two gigabytes of data limit is of use to no-one unless you are holding details of your small stamp collection. I paid £199 for a new stand alone version of access a couple of years ago. How anyone can justify this price tag now is beyond me. Rather than waste any more time on trying to 'bull up' new versions of access, just come clean and admit it is on the way out, giving current users plenty of time to migrate their systems.