|
| > Record-Level locking is a Engine-level option,
> controlled by Access when a database is opened:
> Tools | Options | Advanced
My understanding is that the option in Tools | Options | Advanced is only
the default record locking for forms, reports, and queries. That is, when a
new object is created, it is given the default record locking option
specified there.
I suppose if one edits data directly in a table, the default record locking
option comes into play. But when there is a form, report, or query, the
RecordLocks property of that object trumps the default record locking option
specified in Tools | Options | Advanced. That's my understanding, anyway.
Regardless, the point is somewhat moot, since, when dealing with a SQL
database, Jet can't lock the records anyway. From Access online help:
"Note When you edit data in a linked SQL database table by using ODBC,
Microsoft Access doesn't lock records; instead, the rules of that SQL
database govern locking. In this instance, regardless of the record-locking
setting you choose for your database, Microsoft Access always acts as though
the No Locks setting has been selected."
>
> You have obviously loaded a 'dyanaset' instead of a
> 'snapshot': Jet has retrieved pointers to all of the
> records, and is now laboriously retrieving the data,
> 10 records at a time. The switch may have happened
> just because of the size of the records increased.
That could be; but one wouldn't think that going from 21 fields displayed to
24 would make that much of a difference. Also, I tried removing the three
fields, and it's still slow -- which leads me to wonder if it's some sort of
optimization issue on the SQL end which will eventually work itself out.
Probably not; but it's a thought.
Neil
> '---
>
> (david)
>
>
>
> "Neil" <njones@pxdy.com> wrote in message
> news:bhu4e.1036$An2.939@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
|
|