migrating from Access to SQL Server

Our organization has about 10 multiuser Access databases that I'm
considering migrating to SQL Server. Currently, these split databases
perform reasonably well in Access over our LANs, but slow over the T1 lines.
However, we occasionally run into corruption problems, and we would
eventually like to develop some browser-based applications to work with our
data.
Most of these databases have dozens of queries and form controls also based
on queries, so the most realistic strategy for us in the short term would
probably be to just migrate the data, and link the remaining Access front
ends to the tables in SQL Server.
However, I'm wondering if we will accomplish much by taking such a step,
since all the queries will still be in the front end. I understand there
would be a performance improvement if we had the resources (which we
currently don't) to convert those queries to views and stored procedures in
SQL Server. But if we only move the data tables to the back end, do we
really obtain enough of a benefit to justify taking even that step?
Thanks in advance,
Paul
Hi,
Please do not misunderstand moving data from Acess to SQL Server would
increase the performance, it is still based on the design of the databases
and all the indexes. I would recommend to move from Access to SQL Server
since SQL Server can support more concurrent users and it provides better
security and data import/export functions.
Ed
"Paul Ponzelli" wrote:

> Our organization has about 10 multiuser Access databases that I'm
> considering migrating to SQL Server. Currently, these split databases
> perform reasonably well in Access over our LANs, but slow over the T1 lines.
> However, we occasionally run into corruption problems, and we would
> eventually like to develop some browser-based applications to work with our
> data.
> Most of these databases have dozens of queries and form controls also based
> on queries, so the most realistic strategy for us in the short term would
> probably be to just migrate the data, and link the remaining Access front
> ends to the tables in SQL Server.
> However, I'm wondering if we will accomplish much by taking such a step,
> since all the queries will still be in the front end. I understand there
> would be a performance improvement if we had the resources (which we
> currently don't) to convert those queries to views and stored procedures in
> SQL Server. But if we only move the data tables to the back end, do we
> really obtain enough of a benefit to justify taking even that step?
> Thanks in advance,
> Paul
>
>
|||Good points. Thanks, Ed.
"Ed" <Ed@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1F01575D-FA7D-4C73-ADC6-F205B7B035DD@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> Please do not misunderstand moving data from Acess to SQL Server would
> increase the performance, it is still based on the design of the databases
> and all the indexes. I would recommend to move from Access to SQL Server
> since SQL Server can support more concurrent users and it provides better
> security and data import/export functions.
> Ed
> "Paul Ponzelli" wrote:
|||"Paul Ponzelli" <begone@.spam.forever> wrote in message
news:enIRb3vPFHA.3596@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Our organization has about 10 multiuser Access databases that I'm
> considering migrating to SQL Server. Currently, these split databases
> perform reasonably well in Access over our LANs, but slow over the T1
lines.
> However, we occasionally run into corruption problems, and we would
> eventually like to develop some browser-based applications to work with
our
> data.
In addition to the valid points that Ed made, SQL Server is far more
resilient to data corruption than Access.
Steve
|||Another reason to make the move.
Thanks, Steve.