Posted by andy on 10/31/05 12:42

Erland Sommarskog wrote:
> Neil (nospam@nospam.net) writes:
<<>>
> > So I'm wondering if there is some command that one can use to accomplish
> > what I accomplished by moving to the last record.
>
> Well, I still don't know Access, so I have still problems understanding
> this.
>
> There is no last record in a view. A view, just like a table is unordered.
> But if you moved to what is the last record in what Access presents to
<<>>
> Since I don't know your application, nor do I know Access, I cannot really
> suggest alternatives to the application design, but it just does not sound
> right to me to get 50000 rows, before the users can start working.

Indeed.

I do know access pretty well. You could change the ODBC settings and
perhaps improve performance a bit. That's just propagating the
underlying problem though, IMO.

I've seen users who are experienced with excel presented with Access
solutions are direct conversions. These were a right mess. In every
case working with users analysing how they used the data resulted in
more practical systems designs.
It seems likely that similar redesign could be done in this instance.
Nobody really just looks through 50,000 records. By the time you page
through it all you'd need an eidetic memory to understand anything
across 50,000 records. What users will do is look at the top 20 on
price, sales or bottom 20 sales....longest outstanding invoices and
stuff like that.
Providing user selected sort criteria and top/bottom n selection
criteria is often the simplest approach.


>
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp

[Back to original message]