UtterAccess.com
X   Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)

Welcome to UtterAccess! Please ( Login   or   Register )

Custom Search
 
   Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Use Sharepoint As If Shared Network Drive?, SharePoint Server 2010    
 
   
Kruzer
post Nov 3 2017, 10:54 AM
Post#1



Posts: 383
Joined: 26-February 11
From: Nova Scotia, Canada


In the past, I have placed an Access database back end and front end on a shared network drive and then copied the front end to each person's desktop. Can I do this on sharepoint?

--------------------
Cheers,
Go to the top of the page
 
theDBguy
post Nov 3 2017, 10:58 AM
Post#2


Access Wiki and Forums Moderator
Posts: 71,017
Joined: 19-June 07
From: SunnySandyEggo


Hi,

The short answer is "not really."

It has been done before but somewhat inconsistent.

So, my advice is to use or try something else, if you don't want to deal with the headaches.

Just my 2 cents...

--------------------
Just my 2 cents... "And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know" - Kansas
Microsoft Access MVP | Access Website | Access Blog | Email
Go to the top of the page
 
Kruzer
post Nov 3 2017, 11:12 AM
Post#3



Posts: 383
Joined: 26-February 11
From: Nova Scotia, Canada


I don't want the headaches. Thanks DBGuy.

That may answer my other question I just posted too.
This post has been edited by Kruzer: Nov 3 2017, 11:13 AM

--------------------
Cheers,
Go to the top of the page
 
GroverParkGeorge
post Nov 4 2017, 09:35 AM
Post#4


UA Admin
Posts: 31,007
Joined: 20-June 02
From: Newcastle, WA


I agree with theDBguy, except more strongly.

It's bad juju to put a shared back end in any location where it can't be handled by the Windows file system, SharePoint, DropBox, et al.

Like a lot of things "you can get away with for a while", this one is just begging for problems at some point.

I believe Daniel Pineault's website has a good review of this issue, but I can't put my cursor on it at the moment.

--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
jleach
post Nov 4 2017, 07:47 PM
Post#5


UtterAccess Editor
Posts: 9,768
Joined: 7-December 09
From: Staten Island, NY, USA


Not sure if Daniel has a writeup, but I did something on Dropbox/OneDrive a while back:

https://dymeng.com/access-on-dropbox-or-onedrive/

SharePoint should share the basic principle.

--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
GroverParkGeorge
post Nov 4 2017, 10:19 PM
Post#6


UA Admin
Posts: 31,007
Joined: 20-June 02
From: Newcastle, WA


Sorry, I remembered badly. It was Jack's write up that I was thinking of. No wonder I couldn't find it. doh.gif

--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
Kruzer
post Nov 5 2017, 11:20 AM
Post#7



Posts: 383
Joined: 26-February 11
From: Nova Scotia, Canada


Thanks everyone! When the company went to Sharepoint they were going to eliminate the shared network drive. Guess I need to think of an alternative way to do this.

--------------------
Cheers,
Go to the top of the page
 
theDBguy
post Nov 5 2017, 11:26 AM
Post#8


Access Wiki and Forums Moderator
Posts: 71,017
Joined: 19-June 07
From: SunnySandyEggo


Hi,

Depending on the complexity of your application, you might still be able to use SharePoint. For example, if you have a simple application with records not exceeding 5000 records, you can convert your tables into SharePoint Lists and then use SharePoint as the BackEnd and keep your existing Access application as the FrontEnd.

Just my 2 cents...

--------------------
Just my 2 cents... "And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know" - Kansas
Microsoft Access MVP | Access Website | Access Blog | Email
Go to the top of the page
 
Kruzer
post Nov 5 2017, 11:55 AM
Post#9



Posts: 383
Joined: 26-February 11
From: Nova Scotia, Canada


Thanks for the suggestion. It's not what I would consider a simple database.

--------------------
Cheers,
Go to the top of the page
 
theDBguy
post Nov 5 2017, 12:17 PM
Post#10


Access Wiki and Forums Moderator
Posts: 71,017
Joined: 19-June 07
From: SunnySandyEggo


Did you mean you have more than 5000 records in your main tables and maybe using composite primary keys?

I wasn’t referring to the complexity of your Front End, just the Back End.

--------------------
Just my 2 cents... "And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know" - Kansas
Microsoft Access MVP | Access Website | Access Blog | Email
Go to the top of the page
 
GroverParkGeorge
post Nov 5 2017, 01:28 PM
Post#11


UA Admin
Posts: 31,007
Joined: 20-June 02
From: Newcastle, WA


PMFJI:

I believe the 5000 record limit is not a hard limit on the TOTAL number of records in any single table/list. It is possible to store several times that number of records, in fact. I've seen up to ~25,000 to 27,000 records in lists in a SharePoint 2007 site, and have heard of much larger ones in SP 2010 and later sites.

The issue, rather, is with INDEXING. By default, the limit on the number of records which can be indexed at any one time is 5,000. That's a hard limit, but it applies only to indexes being added to existing records, or new records being added to a table in bulk and requiring indexing. I believe that in an on-premises SharePoint installation it is possible to have this configured to support more than that, but that's entirely within the domain of the SP site admins. Once the index is in place, records can be added beyond the 5,000, but new indexes can no longer be added once that happens.

With regard to composite primary keys, I may be uninformed, but I do believe that Referential Integrity (at least as far as it can be approximated in SP) does require the use of Lookup fields, which support only single field primary keys. That means tables which have composite Primary Keys would have to be modified to include a surrogate AutoNumber as the PK, which can then be used in the Lookup for related tables.



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 


Custom Search
RSSSearch   Top   Lo-Fi    22nd November 2017 - 11:28 AM