I am working on migrating a MS Access Database over to a newer SQL platform.
But, with all of the users who are currently using it, we're migrating slowly/carefully.
The first step is that we are re-writing the VBA code into C#, which is then deployed in a .dll along with the database.
Now, the VBA code calls into the C# to do the business logic, then the VBA continues to do the displays/UI, while Access still hosts the database.
The problem comes in that I have a report that is being run after the business logic from the C# in one place, and apparently MS Access has a cache, which clears every 5 seconds. So, the transaction that occurs in the C# code writes to the database, but the VBA code is still using the cache. This is causing errors, as the records added to the database (which the VBA report is trying to report on) don't exist in the cache yet...
I'm guessing that the C# .dll must be getting treated as a "second connection" to the MS Access database, which is what seems to typically cause this error in my searches (thinks that one process is writing, and the other is reading).
Since the cache is cleared out every 5 seconds, we can just put the process to sleep, and wake it up after 5 seconds, and then run the report, but that's pretty terrible for an end user.
And, making things difficult, the cache seems like it only gets used in the deployed version (so, when running from source / in debug mode, the error never happens).
Doing some searches, there seems to be plenty of people who have said "just refresh the cache." But, the question is: within VBA, how do you refresh the cache?
Any advice would be welcome.
Thanks
I've been fighting the same issue for years as I write a lot of tools around an old Powerbuilder application that has an Access MDB back end.
The cache does exist and it is VERY real. When data is inserted on a different connection than it is queried on, the cache can be directly observed and measured. It was also documented by Microsoft before they blackholed a bunch of their old articles...
Microsoft Jet has a read-cache that is updated every PageTimeout milliseconds (default is 5000ms = 5 seconds). It also has a lazy-write mechanism that operates on a separate thread to main processing and thus writes changes to disk asynchronously. These two mechanisms help boost performance, but in certain situations that require high concurrency, they may create problems.
I've found a couple workarounds that are not the best, but somewhat make due until I find something better or can re-write the app with a better back end database.
The seemingly best answer I've found (that may actually work for you since you say you need VBA) is to use JRO.RefreshCache. I've been trying to figure out how to implement this using C# or VB.net without any luck. Below is a link to a code example where you execute the RefreshCache method on your 2nd connection that needs to pull the data. I have not tested this myself.
https://documentation.help/MSJRO/jrmthrefreshcachex.htm
A workaround I've found that will deliver the query results within 500ms to 1000ms of insert time (instead of anywhere between 500 and 5000 ms - or more):
Use System.Data.ODBC instead of OleDB, with connection string: Driver={Microsoft Access Driver (*.mdb, *.accdb)};Dbq=;
If someone knows how to use the JRO.RefreshCache method with OLEDB and C# or VB.net, I'd be forever grateful. I believe the issue is it's looking for an ADO connection to be passed in, not an OLEDB connection.
I not aware of ANY suggesting that some 5 second cache exits? Where did this idea come from????
Furthermore, if you have 5 users, then you not going to be able to update their cache, are you?
In other words, the issue of some cache for one user still not going to solve or work with mutli-users anyway, is it?
The simple matter is if you load up a form with 100 reocrds, and then other users are ALSO working on that 100 rows, then all users will not see other changes until such time you tell access to re-load the form.
You can do this with a me.Refresh in the form, and then it will show changes made by other users (or even your c# code!!!).
However, that not really the soluion here.
How does near EVERY system deal with this issue?
Answer:
You don't, you "design" the software to take the user work flow into account.
So, in place of loading up a form with 100 rows of data? (which you should not, unless SUPER DUPER reason exists for doing that).
The you provide a UI in which the user FIRST searches for whatever it is they want to work on.
In other words, say you just booked a user on a tour. Now, they call the office back, and want to change some details of that tour. But, a different tour staff might pick up the phone. So, now a 2nd user opens the tour?
So, you solve that issue by NOT loading all the tours into that form in the first place.
you provide a search screen, so they can search for the user, find the user, maybe type in a invoice number or whatever.
You display the results in a pick list, and then launch the form to the ONE record (and perhaps detail records from child tables).
So there no concpet of a cache in Access anymore then there is in c#.
However, if you load up a datatable in c#, and then display that data?
Well, what about the other users on that system. They will not see changes to that data ANY MORE then the current access form.
So, if you want to update some data in c#? Then fine, but you need/want to do two things:
First, before you call any c# code that may update the current form reocrd? You need to FORCE a data save of that current record BEFORE you call any code, be it VBA code, or c# code that going to update that current reocrd the user is working on.
You can in Access save the current reocrd in MANY different ways, but the typical approach is:
' single record save - current record
if me.dirty then me.dirty = false
' VBA or c# code goes here.
' optional refresh the current form to reflect changes
me.Refresh
So, in most cases, it is the "design" of your software that will solve this issue.
For example, in the tour example, or in fact ANY system, the user can't work, can't update, and can't do their job UNLESS they first find/search and have a means to bring up that form + record data in the first place.
So, ANY typical good design will:
Ask the user for that name, invoce number or whatever.
Display the results of the search, and THEN allow the user to pick the record/data to work on. When they are done, they close that form and are RIGHT BACK to the search form to do battle with the next customer or task or phone call or whatever.
So, a search form might look like this:
In above, I typed in smi, and then displayed a pick list.
The user can further type in say part of the first name, and thus now get this:
So, maybe they type in a invoice number, customer number, booking number or whatever.
So, you display the results, and then they can select the row or "thing" to work on.
thus, we click on the row (or above glasses button), and then jump to the ONE record.
so, the user does whatever they have to do with the customer. Now, when done, they close the ONE thing, the ONE main reocrd.
This not only saves the data (so others in the office can now use that booking data), but it also means the data is saved. and they are NOW right back at the search screen, ready to do battle with the next customer.
So, not only does this mean we have a VERY bandwith friednly design (we only pull the one main reocrd into that form), but it also is better for work flow.
The Access form's cache thus becomes a non issue, since we only dealing with the one record.
And as I pointed out, if the system is multi-user, then you NOT going to be able to udpate and deal with multiple users cached data anyway, are you?
Think of ANY system you EVER used from a software point of view.
When you use google, does it download the WHOLE internet, and then you use ctrl-f to search megs and megs of data in the browser?
Nope!
you search first, get a list of that search, and THEN pick one!!
And when that list is display, maybe others on the internet are udpateing, and add new data - but if that was cached in your browser, then it would not work!!!
And same goes for a desktop accounting system. You don't load up all accounts, and THEN have the user go ctrl-f to search all the data. You search for the customer, invoice number and PICK ONE to work on.
And it does not make sense to load up a form with 1000 customers, and then go ctrl-f to find that customer. Same goes for a instant banking machine. It does not download ALL customers and THEN let you search. It asks you FIRST to get what you need. So, be it browser based, desktop based, or JUST ABOUT ANY software you use?
You quite much elminate the cache issue, since not pre-loading boatloads of data, but asking and letting the user search for the data they need.
So, in regards to the Access form data and cache?
If you are on a form, and call VBA code, or c# code or whatever?
If that code update the current form, you have NO MORE OR LESS of a issue when calling VBA code, or c# code!!!! If that code updates the current form, and the reocrd is dirty (has pending edits), then you get that message about the current form's reocrd having been udpated by another user!!!
So, your cache issue does NOT IN ANY WAY exist MORE or LESS as a issue in typical Access software.
As a genreal rule, if you are on a form with pending edits, and say want to pop up some form to edit releated data?
You have to ensure that pending edits are SAVED before you launch an form that can edit the same data, or run code that can/may edit that data.
As a result, ZERO cache issues should exist, and they no more or no less exist when calling sql or VBA update code in a form then calling some c# code from that form.
So, write the pending update for that form.
Then run your VBA, SQL, or c# code.
And then do a me.Refresh to display any changes made by those external routines.
there is no documetjion, or ANY article I can find that suggests some kind of 5 seocnd cache or update - it is a urban myth, and your software challenge here in regards to use c# or VBA, or even SQL server stored procedures?
They are all the same issue, and I dare say that often access is used as a front end to SQL server, and ALL OF the SAME issues exist when using SQL server with ms-access.
I am rather new to coding an Access Application and I have a rather strange error I do not seem to be able to resolve.
I have multiple Forms which are used to write data to some tables. Basically one Form per table.
Mostly the forms are just used to show a selection of the data in the tables. To make sure that noone accidentally alters some data you have to press the button "alter" first, which unlocks the fields to alter the dataset. In one form, however, when you ppress the alter button it switches the dataset. I have one column which is an automated ID which serves as a primary key to distinguish the data from one another.
So when I am debugging the issue and print this ID (Debug.Print Forms(formName).Controls("ID")) it returns the ID of the data that I want to alter, but as soon as I access the data and change one field (Forms(formName).Controls("Column1") = "foo") and print the ID again the ID switched to a completely different dataset.
I have absolutely no clue how that could happen. There is no other code being processed in between. I have googled for multiple hours but have not found anything in this regard yet. Maybe I am just using not the right keywords.
Any help is highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance :)
How can I make sure that specific data in the database isn't altered anymore.
We are working with TSQL. Inside the database we store contract revisions. These have a status: draft / active. When the status has become active, the revision may never be altered anymore. A revision can have 8 active modules (each with its own table), each with their own settings and sub-tables. This creates a whole tree of tables with records that may never change anymore when the contract revision has been set to active.
Ideally I would simply mark those records as read-only. But such thing does not exists as of today. The next thing that comes to mind are triggers. Thus I have to add those triggers to a lot of tables, all which are related to the contract revision.
Now maybe there are other approaches, like a database only for archiving on which the user only has insert rights. Thus when a contract revision has become active, it is moved from one DB to the archive DB (insert is allowed). And can never be altered anymore (DENY UPDATE|DELETE).
But maybe there are other more ingenious options I haven't thought of, and you did. Maybe including the CLR or what not.
So how can I make a tree-structure of records inside our TSQL database effectively readonly that is the most maintenance free, easy to understand, quickly to setup, and can be applied in a most generic way?
What ever you do (triggers, granted rights...) might be overcome by a user with higher rights, this you know for sure...
Is this just to archive this data?
One idea coming into my mind was to create a nested XML with all data within on big structure and put this somewhere into a side table. Create a INSTEAD OF UPDATE,DELETE TRIGGER where you just do nothing. Let these tables be 1:1-related.
You can still work with this data, but not quite as fast as being read from physical tables.
If you want, you even might convert the XML to a string and calculate some Hash-Code, which you store in a different place to check for manipulations.
The whole process might be done in one single Stored Procedure call.
What should I do if a user has a few hundred records in the database, and would like to make a draft where they can take all the current data and make some changes and save this as a draft potentially for good, keeping the two copies?
Should I duplicate all the data in the same table and mark it as a draft?
or only duplicate the changes? and then use the "non-draft" data if no changes exist?
The user should be able to make their changes and then still go back to the live and make changes there, not affecting the draft?
Just simply introduce a version field in the tables that would be affected.
Content management systems (CMS) do this already. You can create a blog post for example, and it has version 1. Then a change is made and that gets version 2 and on and on.
You will obviously end up storing quite a bit more data. A nice benefit though is that you can easily write queries to load a version (or a snapshot) of data.
As a convention you could always make the highest version number the "active" version.
You can either use BEGIN TRANS, COMMIT and ROLLBACK statements or you can create a stored procedure / piece of code that means that any amendments the user makes are put into temporary tables until they are ready to be put into production.
If you are making a raft of changes it is best to use temporary tables as using COMMIT etc can result in locks on the live data for other uses.
This article might help if the above means nothing to you: http://www.sqlteam.com/article/temporary-tables
EDIT - You could create new tables (ie NOT temporary, but full fledged sql tables) "on the fly" and name them something meaningful. For instance, the users intials, followed by original table name, followed by a timestamp.
You can then programtically create, amend and delete these tables over long periods of time as well as compare against Live tables. You would need to keep track of how many tables are being created in case your database grows to vast sizes.
The only major headache then is putting the changes back into the live data. For instance, if someone takes a cut of data into a new table and then 3 weeks later decides to send it into live after making changes. In this instance there is a likelihood of the live data having changed anyway and possibly superseding the changes the user will submit.
You can get around this with some creative coding though. There are many ways to tackle this, so if you get stuck at the next step you might want to start a new question. Hopefully this at least gives you some inspiration though.
I have created a database/app where a report is created when a particular button is clicked. just now, two people managed to hit the button at exactly the same time, which caused all sorts of not-good.
Is there a way to make a button invisible across instances once it's clicked by one person? Or some way to lock the database so nothing can be done until the person who clicked first is done?
I have a solution (basically, a global check variable that stops the report creation) but now I want to know if either of the other two options can be done.
It would really help to know more about your architecture here. What database? What language have you written your application in? Concurrent reading is usually an important and basic feature of most multi-user databases.
Seconding Daniel Cook's general notion, maybe explicating a bit: don't have the button run the report directly. Have it run a little subroutine that first checks a special purpose table where you represent report "runs" with a new record that has a start date-time and an end date-time. If there is a record sitting in the table with no (null) end-date, then the report must still be running, therefore, do NOT begin report, turn off button instead. Else, insert into that same table and then start running the report. Add to this a periodic, not-too-frequent callback on that button to perform the same check, and you've got something that comes close, but isn't "realtime", but should work in most architectures (not knowing anything about session management capabilities).
Here's what I did:
If DLookup("PayLock", "table", "pkID=1") Then 'it's locked - exit
MsgBox "Someone else has already started the pay process.", vbOKOnly
Exit Sub
Else
blah blah blah......
The "PayLock" field in the table holds the check variable. After "Else" comes the actual code to run when the button is clicked.
Just FYI, since they were asked:
it is split database
there are multiple users
yes, the report just reads data and exports it into an excel spreadsheet.
It looks like this is the only solution, which works, but seems inelegant. I keep discovering that the way I get around my lack of knowledge is the actual way to do it...