Record Locking

For a Ms Access 2003 Db, Split, multi-user (10 users or so) in a peer-2-peer
environment.

I read that it can be beneficial to remove record locking on the forms and
am confused?!

I thought edited record was what should be setup. Why not? If you remove
it, then how are updates managed in the rare even 2 user work on the same
record?

Thank you for the clarifications.

QB

"QB" wrote in message
...
For a Ms Access 2003 Db, Split, multi-user (10 users or so) in a
peer-2-peer
environment.

I read that it can be beneficial to remove record locking on the forms and
am confused?!

I thought edited record was what should be setup. Why not? If you remove
it, then how are updates managed in the rare event 2 user work on the same
record?

If you remove record locking, then Access still checks for conflicts when
the user saves an edited record. Access will check that the current record
data matches the original record data retrieved when that user's Access last
read the data. If any of the data has changed, that means someone else made
the change. Access prompts the user to discard their changes or to overwrite
the other user's changes. I don't think either of those is a good outcome,
so I agree with you that locking the edited record is a good compromise.

You can test these features by opening 2 copies of your db on your own
computer simultaneously. Display the same record on both copies, and then
begin editing both copies. Save one copy, and see what happens when you try
to save the second one. Do the same both with and without edited record
locking, and you can choose what you want to do with your users.

Thank you for your reponse.

But now I am even more confused regarding the entire record locking
process... If Access is still going to perform a check regardless of whether
I specify edited record locking or no locking, what is the point of ever
setting the record locking property?

As you state, I will need to perform a couple test to hopefully grasp the
subtle differences between the various settings.

Thank you once again,

QB






"Paul Shapiro" wrote:

"QB" wrote in message
...
For a Ms Access 2003 Db, Split, multi-user (10 users or so) in a
peer-2-peer
environment.

I read that it can be beneficial to remove record locking on the forms and
am confused?!

I thought edited record was what should be setup. Why not? If you remove
it, then how are updates managed in the rare event 2 user work on the same
record?

If you remove record locking, then Access still checks for conflicts when
the user saves an edited record. Access will check that the current record
data matches the original record data retrieved when that user's Access last
read the data. If any of the data has changed, that means someone else made
the change. Access prompts the user to discard their changes or to overwrite
the other user's changes. I don't think either of those is a good outcome,
so I agree with you that locking the edited record is a good compromise.

You can test these features by opening 2 copies of your db on your own
computer simultaneously. Display the same record on both copies, and then
begin editing both copies. Save one copy, and see what happens when you try
to save the second one. Do the same both with and without edited record
locking, and you can choose what you want to do with your users.

.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:44:16 -0700, QB wrote:

But now I am even more confused regarding the entire record locking
process... If Access is still going to perform a check regardless of whether
I specify edited record locking or no locking, what is the point of ever
setting the record locking property?

The difference is WHEN the user gets the feedback. If the record is locked,
they'll get an error when they first start to try to edit the record. If not,
they'll spend their time carefully editing in their new data... and then get
their hand slapped at the end of the process, saying "nyah nyah, you can't do
that, someone else got there first" (a bit more politely but still...)
--

John W. Vinson [MVP]

‘Optimistic locking’ (no locks) puts less strain on the system but can be a
PITA for users unless conflicts are rare. ‘Pessimistic locking’ (edited
record) requires more work of the system, but, if conflicts arise, avoids
staff wasting time and money doing work which they then find they have to
discard, or which is immediately overwritten by another user.

It used to be the case that optimistic locking was pretty much de rigueur as
Access did not provide true record locking, but only page locking, which
meant other records besides the current one could be locked. Nowadays true
record locking makes this reason obsolete, so the case for pessimistic
locking is much stronger.

Ken Sheridan
Stafford, England

QB wrote:
Thank you for your reponse.

But now I am even more confused regarding the entire record locking
process... If Access is still going to perform a check regardless of whether
I specify edited record locking or no locking, what is the point of ever
setting the record locking property?

As you state, I will need to perform a couple test to hopefully grasp the
subtle differences between the various settings.

Thank you once again,

QB

For a Ms Access 2003 Db, Split, multi-user (10 users or so) in a
peer-2-peer
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]

.

--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...ccess/201003/1