Actually, my posting was premature. Encrypting the view copy *did* in fact
increase performance; but I just found out why. When I encrypted the view
copy and then refreshed the original view's link, the original view's link
lost its virtual primary key. Don't know why, but that's what happened. And
I was able to reproduce this phenomenon.
So, apparently, with the virtual pk in place, the view link is slow; with
it, it's fast. I have two links to the same view in my MDB -- one with, and
one without virtual pk. One is slow, one is fast. So the virtual pk is
apparently it.
Anyway, I created this post when I thought it was a SQL optimization issue.
Now that I see it's an ODBC/linked table issue, I'm going to continue the
discussion in the original thread, "ADP vs. MDB: Speed." I will be posting
more information about this there, so if you could respond in that thread,
it would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Neil
[quoted text, click to view] "Albert D. Kallal" <kallal@msn.com> wrote in message
news:pLR%d.757153$8l.159195@pd7tw1no...
> "Neil" <njones@pxdy.com> wrote in message
> news:UXO%d.1601$H06.1403@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> - why I am writing this at all, since there's probably no logical
>> explanation for any of this. :-)
>>
>
> Actually, I very much appreciate you sharing that a solution was found.
> Glad to see that the linked view "can" perform ok...
>
> It is certainly possible some setting, or something was cached, or saved
> somewhere.
>
> You could run through Tony's FAQ of performance issues (very few of the
> apply to odbc linked tables..but you might just take a quick read...).
>
>
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performancefaq.htm
>
> (I would check the track name autocorrect...and sub-data sheets settings).
>
> Once again..thanks for provoking the discussions on this...it been well
> worth the show!!!
>
> --
> Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
> Edmonton, Alberta Canada
> pleaseNOOSpamKallal@msn.com
>
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal
>
>