I'm not sure how well I've managed to search on this as I'm not too sure where to start!
I have an append query as follows:
INSERT INTO tbl_Employee ( Company_No )
SELECT tbl_Co_Data.Company_No
FROM tbl_Co_Data
WHERE (((tbl_Co_Data.Company_No) Not In (select Company_No from tbl_Employee)))
ORDER BY tbl_Co_Data.Company_No;
Basically this query is run a number of times a day and appends new company numbers in to a table - 'tbl_Employee'. It's badly named - it's not got much to do with employees. Any way it takes a good 3 minutes to run with about 20k records in tbl_Co_Data and probably 18k records in tbl_Employee.
It looks to me like it's looping through each record in one table for each record in the other - which is plain daft.
I'm currently experimenting with a DTS package that puts tbl_Co_Data in to SQL server first before the query would run (tbl_Employee is already there) with a view to running a SP and ditching the query.
Does anybody have any other ideas as I'm having problems with the DTS in that it appears to be pretty slow in itself!
Hello, I have split a database useing the database spliter wizard. But I still have network speed problems. What I am wondering is if anyone knows if useing an ODBC connection between the front and back ends is more efficient than file sharing across the network? Thanks for any information on this Tim
I have a number of queries which build two or three Union queries which looks at 35,000 records, and when you open the Union queries or run reports it takes forever for them to open.
I have indexed all the tables which have the common fields to see if this speeds it up the queries, but there still slow. The table they look at are in two different tables which are linked into a front end where the queries are!
I query against a table with 380K records and growing.
There are approx 14 fields in the table, but I only retrieve 7 in my query. Does having those extra fields in there slow the query down, or does the query ignore them?
I have a table with 7 million records. Using my continuous Form, I have been using right mouse click and entering in a parameter e.g. *my search term* to filter and this takes some time before the results are shown. This gives a reduced list of say 1,000 records. But then, when I click in the column and try to sort, it takes ages to sort the records.
So, my problem is two fold: firstly, it takes some time for the first filter to work; secondly, it takes time to sort.
Should I be doing this in a different way? Any other tips for filtering and sorting faster?
I'm running this query off a table of about 1.5mil records. If I leave the date parameter off It comes up under a minute. When I add it back, it takes 5 minutes before the query even starts running. All the fields used in filtering the query are indexed. Any ideas to speed this up?
SELECT CallsEntered.[Work Order Nbr], CallsEntered.[Date Entered], CallsEntered.[Time Entered], CallsEntered.[Primary Locator Code] AS [ASC], CallsEntered.Headend, CallsEntered.Node, CallsEntered.[Grid Id], CallsEntered.[Q Code], CallsEntered.[Problem Code 01], CallsEntered.[Primary Finding Code], CallsEntered.[Primary Solution Code], CallsEntered.[Cancel Code], CallsEntered.[Scheduled Date], CallsEntered.[Wo Status], CallsEntered.[Date CheckIn], CallsEntered.[Assigned Installer], Calendar.Week, Calendar.Year FROM Calendar INNER JOIN CallsEntered ON Calendar.Date=CallsEntered.[Date Entered] WHERE (((CallsEntered.[Date Entered]>=Forms!frmServiceCalls!txtStartDate Or Forms!frmServiceCalls!txtStartDate Is Null)=True) And ((CallsEntered.[Date Entered]<=Forms!frmServiceCalls!txtEndDate Or Forms!frmServiceCalls!txtEndDate Is Null)=True) And ((CallsEntered.Node=Forms!frmServiceCalls!txtnode Or Forms!frmServiceCalls!txtnode Is Null)=True) And ((CallsEntered.[Primary Locator Code]=Forms!frmServiceCalls!cboASC Or Forms!frmServiceCalls!cboASC Is Null)=True) And ((CallsEntered.[Q Code]=Forms!frmServiceCalls!cboQCode Or Forms!frmServiceCalls!cboQCode Is Null)=True));
I have a (quite) specific question but I thing it covers something I simply cannot answer.
I have three UPDATE queries running on linked tables in Microsoft Access (2000/XP).
My main data table (the one to be updated) has almost 1million records
My three information tables ALL have primary keys (which are used to link the main table) and vary in size
I have atatched the three UPDATE queries plus descriptions of the field names used.
TableRecordsTime
Main DataTable900000 Mask nomenk1302 hours Mask media90015 minutes Mask brand4000?????
Query A UPDATE [Main DataTable] AS z INNER JOIN [Mask nomenk] AS n ON (z.nomCode1 = mn.nomCode1) AND (z.nomCode2 = mn.nomCode2) AND (z.nomCode3 = mn.nomCode3) AND (z.nomCode4 = mn.nomCode4) SET z.NomenkMask1 = n!NomenkMask1;
Query B UPDATE [Main DataTable] AS z INNER JOIN [Mask media] AS mm ON (z.couCode = mm.couCode) AND (z.nomCode1 = mm.nomCode1) AND (z.pubCode = mm.pubCode) SET z.MediaMask1 = mm!MediaMask1;
Query C UPDATE [Main DataTable] AS z INNER JOIN [Mask brand] AS mb ON (z.couCode = mb.couCode) AND (z.nomCode1 = mb.nomCode1) AND (z.brCode1 = mb.brCode1) AND (z.brCode2 = mb.brCode2) SET z.BrandMask1 = mb!BrandMask1;
My problem, quite simpley is the speed involved with running these queries. I know that query b) is the quickest with query a) a distant second (I could not even complete the running of query c) and killed it after 6 hours.
What I need to know is WHY is queryC soooo much slower than queryB when the only realy diference that I can see between them if the latter has an extra field to join on
The guy who created this cluster of a database no longer works here. There is a section in it that has a user select an option (0-30) then click a button. When that button is clicked it runs a series of queries based on the selection. Each selection chosen takes 90 minutes to update. I am looking to see if there is any way to do the same in less time. Additionally.. I am having to select 1, click the button, wait 90 minutes. select 2, click the button, wait 90 minutes. select 3, click the button, wait 90 minutes.... and so on. Therefore I am also trying to come up with a way to have to have a button that will do selections 1-10 all in one run.
Code: Private Sub btn_download_Click() On Error GoTo Err_btn_download_Click Dim db As Database, qwo As QueryDef, rs As Recordset, x, numrec As Long, rt As Recordset, rwo As Recordset Dim stDocName As String, i As Long, rwot As Recordset, qwot As QueryDef, qs As QueryDef, xcount As Long, xmsg As Integer
I'm having trouble with access. Basically it has been very slow to load (over 30 seconds when not opening a database) and when opening a database it just crashes.
Has anyone any idea what could cause this as it worked fine before ?
hi Guys, I have been looking at different post and checking Microsoft help files as well, but still can't seem to fix this problem.
I am having 2 tables. The first table is connected to a form for viewing and entering data, and in the second table i am just copying 3-4 fields from the first table.
I am trying to use the insert statement to insert records in the second table, and everytime i click on the "Add" button to add the records i get the following error "MS access can't append all the records in the append query ... blah blah blah"
However if i close the form and reopen it, and goto the record (as it is saved in the first database) and now click on the add button to add the fields to the second table/database, it works.
Hi, In my database im using several union queries as they turn out to be very useful. However, whenever I have a calculation that involves one of the union queries, things happen at a very slow pace. Is there a way to speed it up a bit? Thank you Stacey
I'm doing the simplest little 'INSERT INTO' type operation here with recordsets in Access 97 (SR2). Inserting into a table whose name is stored in the Const TABLE_CANDIDS.
I have a little piece of code that doesn't move on until the changes are committed to the table (usually this is just a single long integer being added).
The transaction takes up to a second to commit, and sometime doesn't commit at all. I tried putting begintrans and committrans around the loop but it seems to make the problem worse.
Can anyone spot my error?
Thanks, Rob
' Empty the TABLE_CANDIDS table then start filling it with the current ' list of Candidates DoCmd.RunSQL "DELETE * FROM " & TABLE_CANDIDS Set rstCandIDs = CurrentDb.OpenRecordset(TABLE_CANDIDS)
' Find the CandIDs for all selected items (default to select all) For Each objListItem In objListView.ListItems If objListItem.Selected Or Not blnSelectionOnly Then rstCandIDs.AddNew rstCandIDs!CandIDFiltered = CLng(objListItem.Text) rstCandIDs.Update lngCount = lngCount + 1 End If Next objListItem rstCandIDs.Close
' Wait for up to 1 second until the new value(s) are committed. Screen.MousePointer = 11 datStart = Now() Do While IsNull(DLookup("CandIDFiltered", TABLE_CANDIDS, "CandIDFiltered <> 0")) If DateDiff("s", datStart, Now()) > 100 Then Exit Do End If DoEvents Loop Screen.MousePointer = 0
Any ideas why a particular query would run very slow in access 2007 when it runs fine on 2003. This is running on a terminal services environment and the database connects to a ms sql 2000 server. I will try it outside terminal services when I can but I can't understand the problem. Im not talking about slightly slower its something like a factor of 100 or 200 slower (I had to limit the dataset just to get a return within a day).
The database was an access 2000 mdb for compatibility across computers but I have tried converting it with out any luck.
I have the following query that I set up as a test, and it runs fine:
SELECT STATUSHISTORIE.* FROM STATUSHISTORIE LEFT JOIN PROBLEM_DE ON STATUSHISTORIE.PROBLEM_ID = PROBLEM_DE.PROBLEMNR WHERE (((STATUSHISTORIE.STATUSDATUM)<#1/1/2005#) AND ((PROBLEM_DE.DATENBEREICH)='SPMO') AND (((Left(([PROBLEM_DE].[MODULZUORDNUNG]),InStr([PROBLEM_DE].[MODULZUORDNUNG],"-")-2)))='K29') AND ((PROBLEM_DE.ERLSTAND)<>"WEIF")) ORDER BY STATUSHISTORIE.PROBLEM_ID, STATUSHISTORIE.STATUSDATUM;
I then set up two global variables ( a String and a Date) and respective functions to return them – ReturnE( ) and ReturnKW( ). Now my query looks like this, but takes ages to run:
SELECT STATUSHISTORIE.* FROM STATUSHISTORIE LEFT JOIN PROBLEM_DE ON [STATUSHISTORIE].[PROBLEM_ID]=[ PROBLEM_DE].[PROBLEMNR] WHERE (((STATUSHISTORIE.STATUSDATUM)<ReturnKW( ) ) AND ((PROBLEM_DE.DATENBEREICH)='SPMO') AND (((Left(([PROBLEM_DE].[MODULZUORDNUNG]),InStr([PROBLEM_DE].[MODULZUORDNUNG],"-")-2)))=ReturnE( ) ) AND ((PROBLEM_DE.ERLSTAND)<>"WEIF")) ORDER BY [STATUSHISTORIE].[PROBLEM_ID], [STATUSHISTORIE].[STATUSDATUM];
My two public functions that return the global variables look like this:
Public gstrE As String 'global variable: contains E used for query Public gdatKW As Date
Public Function ReturnE () ReturnE = gstrE End Function
Public Function ReturnKW () ReturnKW = gdatKW End Function
The tables are actually Views set up from an ODBC Data source. Can anyone please tell me why these global variables are causing the traffic jam? :)
UPDATE (tblAFFIRMATION_REC_TOOL LEFT JOIN tbl_TZero_Spns ON tblAFFIRMATION_REC_TOOL.CptySPN = tbl_TZero_Spns.SPN) INNER JOIN Entity ON tblAFFIRMATION_REC_TOOL.ReferenceEntity = Entity.ReferenceEntity
SET tblAFFIRMATION_REC_TOOL.[Scope Reason] = IIf(IsNull(tbl_TZero_Spns!SPN) Or (Entity!Test='EM'),tblAFFIRMATION_REC_TOOL![Scope Reason],'TZero Trade')
WHERE ((([tblAFFIRMATION_REC_TOOL]![Scope Reason])="Affirmation Eligible"));
the way it right now, it's running for about half hour.. Could that be IIF statement that slows it down ?
Ok my database tracks escalations through my team, I have a main table that stores the unique ID's from the other tables I use in my Combo boxes, this part works really well, no problems.
My issue is with a tableI have claled "TBL_EscJournal", this table has the following fields:
JournalID (Unique Ref, generated by autonumber) EscID (the escalation Id that this journal is relevant to) Journalcreator (captures name of person who as entered the journal) JournalNotes (memo field where you enter your update) JournalDate (Date/Time the journal was entered)
So typically when viewing the main detailed form for a particular escalation I have a subform that shows all the journal entries relevant ot that escalation.
This table is huge, about 70% the total size of my database, partly because of the number of journal entries and partly because it is a memo field and a lot of data is required sometimes.
Up until now th edatabase has been located on a local server and has been fine for local users (2-3 of us) however there is a requirement for another office to use this database.
I am now experiencing massive performance issues, whereby the data is tkaig a long time to refresh on the other sites.
I have migrated the DB over to a SQL back end but still finding performance issues, which further testing has shown that the TBL_EscJournal is the cause.
So a coupel of things really, is there another way I can layout this table to improve performance or should I be uerying the data from this tabel in another way, would it be better for me to split TBL_EscJournal in two, the first part keeping the date/time and person who entered and the second part keeping the notes. Possibly increasing the query speed by carrying out the query on the first part of the table and not on the notes (memo) part ?
I hope this makes sense, if not feel free to PM me,
I am trying to use a criteria to filter out nulls in concatenated variable, which slows the query considerably.The part that makes it slow looks like this -
WHERE ... AND (([tbl1].[x] & [tbl1].[y]) <> "") AND ...
If I work them individually, it's not a problem, the query is fast, but I have to combine them first in order to produce the correct output.
I have an access 2007 database connect to sql server 2008.I am running a pass though query to search between two dates (this query has been fine for years)
If I now run any search using parameters from 26th March 2014 to date - the query takes 10+ minutes to run.If I then change the date to 25th March 2014 to date - it runs in a nano second.I have not changed the back tables and I have not changed the format the data is saved in.
created a query (in Access 2010) that joins several linked tables (to an Oracle database). The query runs in about 20 seconds when I filter with a hard coded date (e.g., #12/31/2014#). The Oracle table column Im filtering on is defined as date/time.
When I attempt to change the hard coded value to a soft coded value (e.g., Forms![Form1]![Latest_Extract_Date]), the query runs over 5 minutes. In this case, the form field has the exact same value (12/31/2014).
Ive encountered similar issues using Access 2000, 2003, etc. This is quite frustrating. Does Access interpret #date value# is a special way? Is there a way to trick Access into the thinking a soft coded date is a hard coded date?
I have a front end that is connected to three back end files. The front end is on my local computer while the back end files are on a network drive.
There are a lot of calculations that go into the queries and intermediate queries. For a report, I have based it on a UNION query.
But when trying to design the report it takes about 45 seconds just to do any one thing, e.g.; - Add Groupings - Add Grouping Headers//Footer, sorting option - Add bound textbox :eek:
Needless to say this is very annoying. :mad:
The union query itself runs fine (takes about 15 seconds to run) and returns about 12,000 Rows. The union query looks like this (I changed the field names to make it read easier, hopefully);
SELECT a1, a2, a3, a4, a5 FROM qry_A;
UNION SELECT ALL a1, b2 AS a2, b3 AS a3, a4, a5 FROM qry_B;
UNION SELECT ALL a1, c2 AS a2, c3 AS a3, a4, a5 FROM qry_C;
UNION SELECT ALL a1, d2 AS a2, a3, a4, a5 FROM qry_D;
UNION SELECT ALL a1, e2 AS a2, a3, a4, a5 FROM qry_E;
UNION SELECT ALL a1, f2AS a2, tblG.f3 AS a3, tblG.f4 AS a4, a5 FROM qry_F;
One solution I came across when searching the forums was to use an Append Query to append the query results to a table and base my report on that. This does indeed fix the problem.
But what I was wondering if it was is my query design that is causing it to be slow or is it just the fact that I am returning 12,000 rows? :confused:
In case it matters, I wanted to mention that I can’t use the report wizard to create the report. When I select the union query, the fields will be showed for awhile then they just disappear. That in and of itself doesn’t cause any trouble since I am creating the report using the design view and not the wizard.
I have a growing Access database in a multi-user environment over a 10/100Mb network. The database is all in one file at the moment, on a shared directory of our XP-Pro 'Server', and the workstations have a mapped drive to it and are W98SE machines. All the machines are 1.2Ghz Fujitsu Siemens machines.
It is still under development, but is also in constant use, and I therefore have to develop on a copy, then get everyone out so I can copy in the changes. I would love it to be a client/server setup and split the db to Tables only backend on the server and progams on the client, but when I tried, the result was a dramatic slow-down in the system...it became unusable.
I do have a budget for this, and could get a proper 'server' or maybe an Ethernet Disk, but what is the best config for speed and admin purposes. Anyone doing something similar??
I noticed something strange in access 2000: sometimes it takes a long time to calculate a report and other times it goes rapidly. I don't see any process taking a lot of CPU %.
When i do the same thing in Access2003, it goes rapidly every time.
Which is faster, placing a calculation ItemNumber: IIf([MANITEMNO]<>" ",[MANITEMNO],[ITEM]) in a query or placing =IIf([MANITEMNO]<>" ",[MANITEMNO],[ITEM])as a Control Source in a text field on a form or report :confused:
I was brought up to believe in Santa Claus and that DLookups were slow. I browsed last night and found many threads mentioning speed issues with DLookups.
My latest project consists of upgrading a database written at a Client Site that is chock full of (you guessed it) DLookups. My normal inclination was to replace them with parameter queries. But before I did, I ran some benchmarks of DLookup vs Parameter Query speed. In all cases (table1 = 11 records, table2 = 1,143 records) the DLookup was faster.
My test was to lookup a field based on the recordset's primary key. In table2 I tested a record mid way down and the last record. DLookup is the winner hands down.
Should I also stop believing in Santa Claus. Too bad because I have a new notebook on my wish list.
Can anyone offer suggestions as to why, when I split my db, place the backend on the server, and open Form2 my front end grows from 2.25MB to 3.95?
I was using macros to filter the data for each type of project and that does not affect the db size nearly as much as this does.
I am using the following code on the On_Click event of the "View Projects" button on Form2 to build the criteria for the records to appear on my "Projects" form.
Private Sub cmdOK_Click() Dim varItem As Variant Dim strSubtype As String Dim strStatus As String Dim strSubtypeCondition As String Dim strSQL As String Dim strSortOrder As String Dim cat As New ADOX.Catalog Dim cmd As ADODB.Command
For Each varItem In Me.lstSubtype.ItemsSelected strSubtype = strSubtype & "," & Me.lstSubtype.ItemData(varItem) Next varItem If Len(strSubtype) = 0 Then strSubtype = "Like '*'" Else strSubtype = Right(strSubtype, Len(strSubtype) - 1) strSubtype = "IN(" & strSubtype & ")" End If
For Each varItem In Me.lstStatus.ItemsSelected strStatus = strStatus & ",'" & Me.lstStatus.ItemData(varItem) & "'" Next varItem If Len(strStatus) = 0 Then strStatus = "Like '*'" Else strStatus = Right(strStatus, Len(strStatus) - 1) strStatus = "IN(" & strStatus & ")" End If
If Me.optAnd.Value = True Then strSubtypeCondition = " AND " Else strSubtypeCondition = " OR " End If
'Build the sort order
If Me.cboSortOrder1.Value <> "Not Sorted" Then strSortOrder = " ORDER BY tblProjectDetails.[" & Me.cboSortOrder1.Value & "]" Else strSortOrder = "" End If
