From: david on
The main historical reason for using non-linked
databases was when using a VB (or C) front-end.

Using a VB front end, you aren't working with the
link wizard, nor with the database window. And
without those, a table link is just a way of hiding
the location of the target database, and making life
more difficult for the developer/supporter.

The main advantage of using a non-linked database
is when using multiple dynamically-linked databases.
If you are dynamically linking multiple databases,
the link doesn't really help you, because it stores
only one link path. It's just one more thing to set
up, tear down, and keep track of.

Table links do store extra information about the
target table (so do the less common query links I
think) This probably makes a query (like your
append queries) faster to set up, and marginally
faster to execute.

Computers are so fast now, that you probably
can't even notice that difference.

It also means that sometimes the information
becomes wrong and out of date if your BE

But in Access, (unlike VB or C), having the linked
tables makes it easier to write queries, and easier
to do ad-hoc testing in the GUI.

So I find that even when I am doing dynamically
linked tables, I tend to use table links, just for
the extra ease when developing.


"MJ" <MJ(a)> wrote in message
>I am sure that someone has asked this at one time or another, but haven't
> found it out here yet.
> I have several inter-related databases, some of them have linked tables
> while others have queries appending to tables which they are not linked
> to.
> What is a good rule of thumb for when it makes better sense to link to a
> table rather than simply appending to a table? What are the PROs and
> CONs?
> Thank you in advance for your informed inputs.
> --
> MJ