I don't see any reason for you to move from Access if you're only using 20K records. Access handles that and more. I think I read that MS wants Access users to have an upper limit of 50-100K records.
- Matt Small -----Original Message----- From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:40 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Access table record limit? Does anyone know what a practical limit of records should be in an Access table? The reason I ask is that I have a table for a feature I am implementing that with some really broad estimates of mine could hit 20,000 records in a year of heavy usage (for this app, which really wouldn't be heavy usage relatively speaking...). Any higher than that and I'd insist on SQL Server for performance. This particular table has just 4 fields, and is nicely indexable... I've seen some outrageous Access databases in my time that worked, but I can't remember if I've seen 20k records in one table. jon ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
