Is 32768 the maximum number of objects in a MS Access database?

[isladogs]

Methinks this thread has wandered completely off topic.

 

[Cotswold]

Methinks this thread has wandered completely off topic.

Unfortunately that is not an unusual issue on the forum.

 

[KitaYama]

Methinks this thread has wandered completely off topic.

I'm the cause. Sorry.

 

[Pat Hartman]

It worried me when I tried to rename them to a consecutive number according to their order of appearance in the AllForms collection with a For Each loop: it skipped some forms. I would guess it becomes erratic when you have that many objects.

Renaming objects reorders the list on the fly so you can end up with strange results.

wow, you can say 2000 users and we will still believe!

As long as the BE is SQL Server et al, 2000 users are possible depending on your seat license count.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

At the peak of the U.S. Navy Reserve's "RHS" project (Reserve HQ Support), we had licenses for the FE package for 350 users and because of internal batch processes that ran as a generic super-user, the ORACLE backend was in the 500-session range. It wasn't Windows/Access, though. With the memory we had on our Itanium servers, we could have managed about 1200-1500 users but there weren't that many personnel managers on our system and we bottle-necked the batch jobs so we only ran four or five at a time during daytime hours.

 

[Edgar_]

Renaming objects reorders the list on the fly so you can end up with strange results.

Thanks. I didn't know it would do such a thing but it would help explain other side effects like the slowness for such a mundane task. I'll check it out.