🚀 go-pugleaf

You'll probably get a variety of answers on this depending on the
developer's personal experiences and the hardware configurations they've
worked with.  I have databases with 60,000+ record-tables in the Access
backend running across an NT 4.0 network.  There are a lot of ways to
optimize Access apps for a variety of possible problems, or to clutter them
up and slow them down, so be prepared to distrust any hard and fast
statements about how many records lead to performance degradation.  With
only 16-32 Mb of Ram in your machines, though, you can expect lousy
performance with almost any size of networked Access database, and with
moderate sized local ones if you have any complex queries.  Processor speed
can't carry you through there, you need RAM to crunch those numbers,
although lot's of disk space for a huge swapfile can help.

Performance also depends on what you're doing.  The performance issues are
slightly different between Access 2 and Access 97, but some of the same
bottlenecks exist in both.  A lot of this is largely dependent on
application design however, so a good Access developer can squeeze a lot
more performance out of what he or she builds than can someone who just
migrated from spreadsheets and thinks relational applied to his family
connections.

Charlotte Foust
cfoust@technologist.com



NinkSink wrote in message <35BFC453.3C37EE36@earthlink.net>...
>sake, figure the PC has 16-32Mb of RAM and is a Pentium 133 or better.
>
>I have looked in MS-Access Help, which states the maximum Access database
size is 1Gig,
>but I have a feeling that performance will be subject to slowness long
before the database
>reaches that size.