Improve FE - BE performaces on LAN

[Minty]

It's not MySQL being a god send, it's the way it was connected, and being used.
After a ton of rewrites the MySQL was better than the initial attempt to use SQL Server.

 

[Minty]

@nector Have a read of this for a balanced comparison, rather than an badly formed opinion.

MySQL vs SQL Server: Definition and Full Comparison [2025]

MySQL vs SQL Server: What is better? What is the difference between them? ➦ Check our article to learn when to use MSSQL or MySQL.

blog.devart.com

 

[KitaYama]

if you really want performance forget about that SQL server

I have a feeling you're kidding and not serious.
If you mean what you said, I think you (or your IT) need to read some books on managing sql server.

I have never used MySQL and can not judge which one is faster. But I can tell you this.
SQL server, according to its documentaions, need to be installed on a dedicated server, and never (again NEVER) on DC because of performance issues.
When we deceided to move from Access BE to SQL server, we were not sure how it will go. So as a test, we installed it on Domain Controller.
After a month, the result was that good that we didn't even bother to add a server. It was postponed to "Later" and that "Later" has not arrived yet.

Some of our tables have more than a million records and at least three of them more than 2 million.
But everything, from data input down to search, update, edit is done in milli seconds.

Even if MySql server is faster, it really goes to milli seconds that no user will recognize the difference. You may have problems with your network or sql server management that made you come to that conclusion.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@KitaYama - at least SOME of that advice about "do not install SQL Server on a Domain Controller" MIGHT originate from some old USA military regulations about "purity of purpose" - having to do with ease of replacement. In the Navy Enterprise Data Center (New Orleans) where I worked for a while, it used to be a regulation (not a technical advisory) that a domain controller could never do any application hosting. This was partly because of their security paranoia and partly because of down-time issues.

Security: If you successfully hack an app co-residing on a domain controller, you are one small step from hacking the entire domain. And the app would be easier to hack directly than the DC.

Down-Time: If you have a domain controller that also does something else, and that machine crashes to the point of requiring a reload, your whole domain or a large segment of it is out of service while you are reloading an app and data having nothing to do with domain operations.

Some of the machines the Navy had at NEDCNO could EASILY have co-hosted a DC along with something else and never even break a sweat. But for operational issues rather than performance reasons, they forbade the use of a DC as anything else. That advice, so far as I recall, was from a high-level government source in the Pentagon, though it has been too long since I retired to remember the particular department name. We also know that the US government is the cause for creating Windows NT in the first place (that's too long a story for now), so I can easily imagine that the DC "purity of purpose" rule originated from having government influence. Heck, if it weren't that I have a limiting disk architecture on my home computer, you could use it as an SQL Server host and it would have enough extra CPU capacity to run a decent DC as well.

 

[823]

Hi,

today I've added trusted location in my access options at my lan but unfortunately no upgrade performace noted.

Now I have Access 2016 32bit; may be more speed if I install access 2016 64bit?
I could also install access 2019 64 bit..... my db could run more speed than 2016 version?


thanks

 

[GPGeorge]

Hi,

today I've added trusted location in my access options at my lan but unfortunately no upgrade performace noted.

Now I have Access 2016 32bit; may be more speed if I install access 2016 64bit?
I could also install access 2019 64 bit..... my db could run more speed than 2016 version?


thanks

The bitness of the Access application won't change the LAN connection speed.

 

[amorosik]

This sounds like the index issues here, if the tables are properly indexed and you are using wired local area network access works faster. Never use WIFi in this case.

Shifting to SQL Server is like climbing mount Everest, if you really want performance forget about that SQL server its just a story for kids use MYSQL the performance is super actually you cannot tell whether you are using local Access DB in terms of speed. The tuning thing others are advising is pain, forget it unless you are ready to spend more, then its fine. To sum it all SQL Server will never beat MYSQL in terms of performance it will always be superior.

The choice is yours

"..Shifting to SQL Server is like climbing mount Everest.."
"..if you really want performance forget about that SQL server its just a story for kids.."
"..MYSQL in terms of performance it will always be superior.."

It doesn't seem like you've had good experiences with Sql Server, which I believe is one of the main db servers used in the enterprise environment
I haven't had the same experience as you, and having tried and used Sql Server on some projects in combination with a program created with Access, I definitely consider it better than MySql
It should also be said that the license for using MySql has always been very ambiguous
There is the community version that can only be used within your own structure
If you want to sell your product that uses MySql as a db server, you can't do it, you have to use the enterprise license, and therefore pay for it