I have a DVD database spreadsheet that has 167k entries and about 12
columns of never changing data.

In Excel, it is a 14MB file that can be searched within milliseconds.

In Access, it is a 169MB file, and searches take several seconds.

It would appear that Access, the database, has a MAJOR flaw in the way
it stores data.

It also apparently performs un-needed steps when performing a simple
search function as well.

That is truly sad, since all the dopes here have been telling me that
my spreadsheet is better of as a database.

It would appear that Excel is better at doing database type things than
the database does.

This problem rears its ugly head elsewhere is your processing paradigms
as well.

If I create a spread sheet that has one sheet that performs lookups to
the 14 MB workbook, the spreadsheet that is a single row lookup of the
bigger workbook suddenly climbs to the exact same size as the workbook it
references. That is absolutely wrong!

It all depends on what you are trying to do, how you intend to use it,
and choosing the right tool for the job. Thanks for sharing your
experience on the comparison. I have more comments inline:

Mycelium wrote:
I have a DVD database spreadsheet that has 167k entries and about 12
columns of never changing data.

In Excel, it is a 14MB file that can be searched within milliseconds.

In Access, it is a 169MB file, and searches take several seconds.

While not a trivial difference in file size, 169MB is not overwhelmingly
large by any stretch in terms of today's storage capacities. Also,
Access can suffer bloating as things are manipulated. Frequent use of
Compact & Repair will keep this in check. This is something new Access
users need to learn.

It would appear that Access, the database, has a MAJOR flaw in the way
it stores data.

It also apparently performs un-needed steps when performing a simple
search function as well.

Access searches will probably be much quicker if appropriate indexing is
applied to the table(s). Not sure what you mean by a major flaw. Data
storage is much easier to manage in Access compared to Excel.

That is truly sad, since all the dopes here have been telling me that
my spreadsheet is better of as a database.

It would appear that Excel is better at doing database type things than
the database does.

That is an oversimplification. Access is much more capable than Excel
when it comes to core database competencies, such as managing relational
data, enforcing business rules/data integrity, returning multiple
results from a conditional lookup, filtering or aggregating data on
multiple criteria, etc. You may not have hit upon any of those issues in
your spreadsheet solution.

This problem rears its ugly head elsewhere is your processing paradigms
as well.

If I create a spread sheet that has one sheet that performs lookups to
the 14 MB workbook, the spreadsheet that is a single row lookup of the
bigger workbook suddenly climbs to the exact same size as the workbook it
references. That is absolutely wrong!

Are you saying Excel failed your expectations here? Seems counter to
your argument. Maybe I misunderstood.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:10:51 -0400, smartin wrote:

While not a trivial difference in file size, 169MB is not overwhelmingly
large by any stretch in terms of today's storage capacities. Also,
Access can suffer bloating as things are manipulated. Frequent use of
Compact & Repair will keep this in check. This is something new Access
users need to learn.

It is a brand new database. You need to comprehend what you read.

Also, the database never changes at the record level. New records
would be added, but none have yet. So no optimizations of ANY table in
it would yield ANY difference in its size. It has more to do with the
amount of characters per field of data that gets stored, regardless of
the number of characters the field actually has in it.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:10:51 -0400, smartin wrote:

Access searches will probably be much quicker if appropriate indexing is
applied to the table(s). Not sure what you mean by a major flaw. Data
storage is much easier to manage in Access compared to Excel.

It is a flat file database. It requires no management.

It is indexed. You failed to read the post.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:10:51 -0400, smartin wrote:

You may not have hit upon any of those issues in
your spreadsheet solution.

The spreadsheet is solved. This is a database issue.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:10:51 -0400, smartin wrote:

If I create a spread sheet that has one sheet that performs lookups to
the 14 MB workbook, the spreadsheet that is a single row lookup of the
bigger workbook suddenly climbs to the exact same size as the workbook it
references. That is absolutely wrong!

Are you saying Excel failed your expectations here? Seems counter to
your argument. Maybe I misunderstood.

I never made an argument "for excel", idiot. Look at the statement.
It infers that ALL of the office apps have problems. You seem to thing I
was touting excel. I was not.

What I said was that a simple, one row spread sheet should be a simple
small file size, but if one performs a lookup to a large spreadsheet in
it, the file size suddenly grows to the size of the lookup workbook. That
is just plain stupid.

Mycelium wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:10:51 -0400, smartin wrote:

If I create a spread sheet that has one sheet that performs lookups to
the 14 MB workbook, the spreadsheet that is a single row lookup of the
bigger workbook suddenly climbs to the exact same size as the workbook it
references. That is absolutely wrong!
Are you saying Excel failed your expectations here? Seems counter to
your argument. Maybe I misunderstood.

I never made an argument "for excel", idiot. Look at the statement.
It infers that ALL of the office apps have problems. You seem to thing I
was touting excel. I was not.

What I said was that a simple, one row spread sheet should be a simple
small file size, but if one performs a lookup to a large spreadsheet in
it, the file size suddenly grows to the size of the lookup workbook. That
is just plain stupid.

The problem you outline here can probably be explained by how Excel
caches linked data.

There is no need to fling insults around.

No one here can fix the applications. If you have an honest question,
post it. If you just want to bitch, take it outside.

If your argument is strong enough, you don't have to sink to personal
attacks. When you attack the other person (by saying things like "idiot" and
"stupid") you have lost the argument.

Whatever strength your argument had at the beginning has now been destroyed
by your ad hominem attacks.

Regards,
Fred

"Mycelium" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:10:51 -0400, smartin wrote:

If I create a spread sheet that has one sheet that performs lookups to
the 14 MB workbook, the spreadsheet that is a single row lookup of the
bigger workbook suddenly climbs to the exact same size as the workbook
it
references. That is absolutely wrong!

Are you saying Excel failed your expectations here? Seems counter to
your argument. Maybe I misunderstood.

I never made an argument "for excel", idiot. Look at the statement.
It infers that ALL of the office apps have problems. You seem to thing I
was touting excel. I was not.

What I said was that a simple, one row spread sheet should be a simple
small file size, but if one performs a lookup to a large spreadsheet in
it, the file size suddenly grows to the size of the lookup workbook. That
is just plain stupid.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:48:20 -0400, smartin wrote:

Mycelium wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:10:51 -0400, smartin wrote:

If I create a spread sheet that has one sheet that performs lookups to
the 14 MB workbook, the spreadsheet that is a single row lookup of the
bigger workbook suddenly climbs to the exact same size as the workbook it
references. That is absolutely wrong!
Are you saying Excel failed your expectations here? Seems counter to
your argument. Maybe I misunderstood.

I never made an argument "for excel", idiot. Look at the statement.
It infers that ALL of the office apps have problems. You seem to thing I
was touting excel. I was not.

What I said was that a simple, one row spread sheet should be a simple
small file size, but if one performs a lookup to a large spreadsheet in
it, the file size suddenly grows to the size of the lookup workbook. That
is just plain stupid.

The problem you outline here can probably be explained by how Excel
caches linked data.

There is no need to fling insults around.

No one here can fix the applications. If you have an honest question,
post it. If you just want to bitch, take it outside.

I can post whatever I wish, ya little twit. Here or "outside".

Go be a netcop somewhere else, bitch.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:53:17 -0600, "Fred Smith"
wrote:

If your argument is strong enough, you don't have to sink to personal
attacks. When you attack the other person (by saying things like "idiot" and
"stupid") you have lost the argument.


That claim has always been false from the get go. Ooops, you lose, and
ooops, you are also an idiot, and no, that does not trigger an automatic
loss of the argument, you never properly raised, undereducated,pointless
ditz.

Thank you for proving my point. I love personal attacks because it means
I've won the argument. Anyone who has a strong case never has to resort to
personal attacks.

Regards,
Fred.

"Mycelium" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:53:17 -0600, "Fred Smith"
wrote:

If your argument is strong enough, you don't have to sink to personal
attacks. When you attack the other person (by saying things like "idiot"
and
"stupid") you have lost the argument.


That claim has always been false from the get go. Ooops, you lose, and
ooops, you are also an idiot, and no, that does not trigger an automatic
loss of the argument, you never properly raised, undereducated,pointless
ditz.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:27:30 -0600, "Fred Smith"
wrote:

Thank you for proving my point.

I proved only that you are completely stupid about the facts of life.
One such fact is that your claim is false and your announcement that you
love it shows evidence of additional mental convolution.

I love personal attacks because it means
I've won the argument.

Except that it does not, you absolute retard.

Anyone who has a strong case never has to resort to
personal attacks.

You can mouth your petty words all you wish. It does not change the
fact that your claim is false.

Do you think anyone is paying attention to your original argument now?

That's the problem when you degenerate to personal attacks. People lose
sight of the point you were trying to make.

What was it again?

Regards,
Fred.

"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:27:30 -0600, "Fred Smith"
wrote:

Thank you for proving my point.

I proved only that you are completely stupid about the facts of life.
One such fact is that your claim is false and your announcement that you
love it shows evidence of additional mental convolution.

I love personal attacks because it means
I've won the argument.

Except that it does not, you absolute retard.

Anyone who has a strong case never has to resort to
personal attacks.

You can mouth your petty words all you wish. It does not change the
fact that your claim is false.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:11:49 -0600, "Fred Smith"
wrote:

Do you think anyone is paying attention to your original argument now?

That's the problem when you degenerate to personal attacks. People lose
sight of the point you were trying to make.

What was it again?

It takes a true retard to be so thick as to not be able to utilize the
tools contained on the computer in front of you. If you do not know how
to read a thread, you should not be in Usenet.

Whether you know it or not, Usenet is where you pathetic excuses for
computer savvy twits are at.