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 have an SQL query (shown below) that i need to run on a regular basis:
db.execute("UPDATE property_info SET IsActive=false WHERE ExpiryDate > #0", CurrentDate);
This query is basically intended to check ALL properties, and to see whether or not they are past their expiration date. If they are, then it will automatically set the property to Inactive. Because "CurrentDate" is a rolling window, i want to re-run this query automatically, probably every day.
Is this something i should be using a stored procedure for?
Any suggestions on the best way to achieve this without any user interaction?
One simple way to achieve this would be to add the line of code to _PageStart.cshtml in the root of your project. This will make it execute every time any page on the site is executed. That is probably massively overkill for something that, by the looks of it, only needs to be checked once a day or so. To alleviate this you could employ a simple DateTime stamp in the Application collection to make sure it only runs a maximum of once every day or so (or tune the interval as appropriate for your needs). This is in no way a solution for fully scheduled code execution, but it may well serve your purposes (and your budget).
I am writing Web app. My program creates relations itself when it is needed, basically when the program is deployed and run first time. But I see that it is very common to create SQL script and run it to initialize data-base for the first time. Is it compulsory to do this?
No, it is not compulsory for the database initialization script to be part of the "first run" of your application; preparing the database can be a deployment step. In fact, depending how long it takes to initialize the database, you might specifically want to avoid initializing the database on the first run, and instead make sure it is deployed and initialized before the first time the application is accessed.
Sorry I don't know if this is something simple, or even where the problem fits in the greater scheme of programming.
So in my unsophisticated ways, my programs have always been of the scheme: 1. start program, 2. wait while program runs, 3. program is done and gone.
What I am doing now is creating a table from a long list of transactions (10,000s of). The table has several combo boxes for the user to select filters. Right now, every time the user changes a filter, the entire log is re-processed, which takes half a minute or a minute.
What I would rather do is have the trade log held in memory, or somehow latently but more immediately available. But not have the program "spinning" in the background. So the user could go about using Excel unaware that the program is ready in the background in case they want to update the table later, or not.
Does that make sense? If it can't be done in VBA, I'd still be curious how it would be done in another environment, say C#, if it could be. Thanks.
If the frequency of updates to the options trade is low enough you could separate reading and processing the option trades from the filtering process:
Step 1 - Refresh - read the logs and process them, storing the results in global containers (arrays, collections, dictionaries, objects ...)
Step 2 - User requests - show form - user chooses filters - show/store results extracted from the global containers.
There are several options
Firstly, is the code correctly structured? For example, do you really need to re-process everything or can a re-write be more efficient?
If you cannot avoid resource intensive code, notify the user with a progress bar or message. Also consider the use of DoEvents which frees up the operating system so that Excel can process other events.
DoEvents is slow and dirty. Even better look at this link DoEvents is slow!!! Here are faster methods
Rewrite your code to work asynchronously. Create a class, a handler and deal with each transaction asynchronously.
You could write some VBScript/Javascript and push the task out to run independently of Excel/VBA. Eg there's an example Here
Don't use VBA :)
Edit: How are you filtering? If you're iterating through thousands of items in an array testing for criteria it can be very slow. Excel's Advanced Filter is very quick and could process hundreds of thousands of rows with multiple criteria quickly.
When a macro in Excel VBA runs, the user cannot use Excel anymore, running the VBA "stucks" the whole program.
Here are a few tips to find a workaround for your problem :
Keep the vba running : load the data a first time when launching the combobox and then display results to the user every time he asks for but keep a combobox loaded so that vba keeps its context and memory
Load the data in Excel Worksheet, even hidden and then use it when the user asks for some data
Give us more info on what you are doing, from where you are loading the data, how you can cache it, what is your current code, what you tried... so that we can help you more
Regards,
Max
I have a routine that examines thousands of records looking for discrepancies. This can take upwards of 5 minutes to complete and although I provide a progress bar and elapsed time count, I'm not sure I want to encourage folk pressing ctrl-break to quit the report should it be taking longer than expected.
A button in the progress bar won't work as the form is non-modal, so is there any neat way of allowing users to quit in this situation?
You need DoEvents and a variable whose scope is greater than the scope of what you're running. That is, if it's just a procedure, you need a module level variable. If it's more than one module, you need a global variable. See here
Stopwatch at DDoE
Normally, the VB engine will tie up the processor until it's done. With DoEvents, however, VB allows the processor to work on whatever is next in the queue, then return to VB.
I don't think there is a way to do it like you would want it to work. VBA is a scripting language so when you start your procedure, it's gonna run until it's done. If you had another button somewhere that even WOULD let you click it while the original procedure was running, I'm not sure how you would reference that procedure and stop it.
You could do something like ask the user if they want to contine, but that would make it run even longer.
Also you could have your procedure check for a condition outside of Excel and keep running as long as it's true. Something easy might be check if a certain text file is in a folder. If you wanted the procedure to stop, open the folder and move the file. On your loop's next iteration, it wouldn't see the file and stop running. Cludgy, inefficient, and not elegant, but it would work. You could also have it check a cell, checkbox, radiobutton, basically any control in another Excel sheet running in another instance of Excel. Again cludgy.
CTRL+Break works. Accept it and move on. One neat trick about that though, is that if you password protect your code and they hit CTRL+Break, the debug option is unavailable and they will only get Continue or End.
If this is code that is run frequently, have you considered scripting something that runs it during times when a human is not using the computer? I used to run telnet screen scraping macros that would take hours to go through our widgets, but I always had them run either on a separate computer or when I wasn't there (nights/weekends).