access97，一个表上超过32个索引，时间转移到MSDE / sql [英] access97, more than 32 indexes on a table, time to move to MSDE / sql
问题描述
你从access97中的一个小应用程序开始，然后你有更多的
模块和更多...
你达到了''item'之类的表格'和''员工'达到
限额和你
知道RI需要更多索引
确实以编程方式而不是关系窗口创建RI
仍然消耗32个索引中的一个？
access2000 / 2003是否允许每个表有更多索引？
现在是时候转移到msde或sql / server了吗？
如果是这样的话，
我看过参考到''迁移''向导，但我没看到
access97，这个向导是一个sql
服务器工具吗？
以及我应该注意的其他迁移（访问-sql）问题
？
le*********@natpro.com 写道：
你从access97中的一个小应用程序开始，然后你有更多的
模块和更多...
你到达像''item''和''employee''这样的表到达
这个限制的点和你
知道RI需要更多的索引
以编程方式创建RI而不是关系窗口
仍然消耗32个索引中的一个？
确实是access2000 / 2003允许每个表有更多的索引？
现在是时候转移到msde或sql / server了吗？
如果是这样的话，
我已经看过引用''migration''向导，但是我没看到
access97，这个向导是sql
服务器工具？
以及我应该注意的其他迁移（访问-sql）问题
？
我只需要大声思考，如何达到需要
桌子上有32个以上的索引？你确定你的东西是正常化的吗？
-
Smartin
le ********* @ natpro.com 写道：
你从access97中的一个小应用程序开始，然后你有更多的
模块和更多...
你达到了像''这样的表的地步项目''和''员工''达到
限制和你
知道RI需要更多索引
确实以编程方式而不是关系窗口创建RI
仍然消耗32个索引中的一个？
access2000 / 2003允许更多索引表？
现在是时候转移到msde或sql / server了吗？
如果是这样的话，
我已经看到引用了一个''migration''向导，但我没看到
access97，这个向导是一个sql
服务器工具吗？
< br / >
以及我应该注意的其他迁移（访问-sql）问题
？
因为即使有32 *字段*也很不寻常，我不明白为什么有人会为b
打出32个索引。
即使您将引擎更改为具有更高限制的引擎，您将用于
接口？ Access无法链接到超过32个索引的表。
我强烈怀疑你有不需要的索引。你在使用查找字段吗？
那些添加隐藏索引和关系一样。不知道这些可能
已经导致你创建非隐藏索引，这些隐藏索引将是隐藏的索引的冗余副本。如果是这样，那么可以消除非隐藏的那些。
-
Rick Brandt，Microsoft Access MVP
电子邮件（视情况而定）......
在Hunter dot com的RBrandt
-
Rick Brandt，Microsoft Access MVP
电子邮件（视情况而定）至...
在Hunter dot的RBrandt
" Rick Brandt" < ri ********* @ hotmail.comwrote in
news：％B *************** @ newssvr29.news.prodigy .net：
我强烈怀疑你有不需要的索引。你在使用
查询字段吗？那些添加隐藏索引和关系一样。不知道这些可能导致您创建非隐藏的
索引，这些索引将是隐藏的索引的冗余副本。如果是这样的话，
则可以消除非隐藏的那些。
有那个，然后就是非规范化，我更强烈地认为
怀疑是额外索引的来源。 br />
-
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
you start with a small application in access97, then you have more
modules and more...
and you reach the point where tables like ''item'' and ''employee'' reach
the limit and you
know there''s more indexes required for RI to come
does creating a RI programatically instead of the relationship window
still consume one of the 32 indexes ?
does access2000 / 2003 allow more indexes per table ?
is now the time to move to msde or sql / server ?
if so,
I''ve seen reference to an ''migration'' wizard, but I don''t see in
access97, is this wizard a sql
server tool ?
and what other migration (access -sql) issues should I be aware of
?
le*********@natpro.com wrote:you start with a small application in access97, then you have more
modules and more...
and you reach the point where tables like ''item'' and ''employee'' reach
the limit and you
know there''s more indexes required for RI to come
does creating a RI programatically instead of the relationship window
still consume one of the 32 indexes ?
does access2000 / 2003 allow more indexes per table ?
is now the time to move to msde or sql / server ?
if so,
I''ve seen reference to an ''migration'' wizard, but I don''t see in
access97, is this wizard a sql
server tool ?
and what other migration (access -sql) issues should I be aware of
?
I just have to wonder out loud, how does one get to the point of needing
32+ indexes on a table? Are you sure your stuff is normalized?
--
Smartin
le*********@natpro.com wrote:you start with a small application in access97, then you have more
modules and more...
and you reach the point where tables like ''item'' and ''employee'' reach
the limit and you
know there''s more indexes required for RI to come
does creating a RI programatically instead of the relationship window
still consume one of the 32 indexes ?
does access2000 / 2003 allow more indexes per table ?
is now the time to move to msde or sql / server ?
if so,
I''ve seen reference to an ''migration'' wizard, but I don''t see in
access97, is this wizard a sql
server tool ?
and what other migration (access -sql) issues should I be aware of
?Since even having 32 *fields* is pretty unusual I fail to see why anyone would
ever hit 32 indexes.
Even if you change engines to one with a higher limit what will you use for an
interface? Access cannot link to tables with more than 32 indexes either.
I stongly suspect you have indexes you don''t need. Are you using lookup fields?
Those add hidden indexes as do relationships. Not knowing about these might
have caused you to create non-hidden indexes that would be redundant copies of
the hidden ones. If so, then the non-hidden ones could be eliminated.
--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.comwrote in
news:%B***************@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
I stongly suspect you have indexes you don''t need. Are you using
lookup fields? Those add hidden indexes as do relationships. Not
knowing about these might have caused you to create non-hidden
indexes that would be redundant copies of the hidden ones. If so,
then the non-hidden ones could be eliminated.There''s that and then there''s denormalization, which I more strongly
suspect as the source of extra indexes.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
这篇关于access97，一个表上超过32个索引，时间转移到MSDE / sql的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
