- Local time
- Today, 16:52
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 28,977
Access has an absolute limit. I don't recall how many Access files you can have open at once, but there IS a limit. You also have limits on the number of open tables, number of connections, and a few other things. I believe that you WILL hit one of these eventually. Which one you hit first depends on your programming approach, but you WILL hit a limit hard and it WILL stop you.
Because of the published absolute limits and the way you ask this question, it is not possible. MSACCESS.EXE has internal lists (for things like concurrently open tables, connections, etc.) that are fixed in size. You want more than 256 connections on a non-O365 DB? Forget about it. We know this because Access specifications are published telling us these limits. Do you honestly think Microsoft is lying?
Access itself (more specifically, MSACCESS.EXE) has only so much room in it for tables. It is not a dynamically interpreted program. It is machine code that has been compiled and is now fixed in size, ultimately by the large number of 32-bit address pointers that remain even in 64-bit versions of Access. Windows can grow tasks very large, but the implication is that these tasks have ways built in to dynamically expand their working lists. Access says it has hard limits in quantities that suggest it has not undergone a massive 64-bit transformation like Excel and Word did. MS has not expanded Access limits like it did for the other products. Do you not understand that?
Your repeated insistence on how to do what Microsoft says can't be done is frustrating to us because it betrays a certain arrogance on your part. Why do you want to ask an unanswerable question? Do you think we are great Zen masters who have an inside track on the unknowable? Are you trying to confound people who volunteer to answer questions free of charge to try to show that we have limits? (We already knew we did.) I am trying very hard to maintain a professional attitude but this is a thread that has developed in a way that leads me to suggest that you don't appreciate the nature of your own question. Your repeated insistence on exceeding limits is exceeding the limits of our patience. If you have a specific technical question, ask here. If you want to know the unknowable, I suggest you make an appointment with the Dalai Lama.
I would like to understand how to do it with Access (if it is possible)
Because of the published absolute limits and the way you ask this question, it is not possible. MSACCESS.EXE has internal lists (for things like concurrently open tables, connections, etc.) that are fixed in size. You want more than 256 connections on a non-O365 DB? Forget about it. We know this because Access specifications are published telling us these limits. Do you honestly think Microsoft is lying?
Access itself (more specifically, MSACCESS.EXE) has only so much room in it for tables. It is not a dynamically interpreted program. It is machine code that has been compiled and is now fixed in size, ultimately by the large number of 32-bit address pointers that remain even in 64-bit versions of Access. Windows can grow tasks very large, but the implication is that these tasks have ways built in to dynamically expand their working lists. Access says it has hard limits in quantities that suggest it has not undergone a massive 64-bit transformation like Excel and Word did. MS has not expanded Access limits like it did for the other products. Do you not understand that?
Your repeated insistence on how to do what Microsoft says can't be done is frustrating to us because it betrays a certain arrogance on your part. Why do you want to ask an unanswerable question? Do you think we are great Zen masters who have an inside track on the unknowable? Are you trying to confound people who volunteer to answer questions free of charge to try to show that we have limits? (We already knew we did.) I am trying very hard to maintain a professional attitude but this is a thread that has developed in a way that leads me to suggest that you don't appreciate the nature of your own question. Your repeated insistence on exceeding limits is exceeding the limits of our patience. If you have a specific technical question, ask here. If you want to know the unknowable, I suggest you make an appointment with the Dalai Lama.