title: SQL Server Table > MS Access Local Copy?
body: <p>I'm looking for a little advice.</p>
  
  <p>I have some SQL Server tables I need to move to local Access databases for some local production tasks - once per "job" setup, w/400 jobs this qtr, across a dozen users...</p>
  
  <p>A little background:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li><p>I am currently using a DSN-less approach to avoid distribution issues</p></li>
  <li><p>I can create temporary LINKS to the remote tables and run "make table" queries to populate the local tables, then drop the remote tables.  Works as expected.</p></li>
  <li><p>Performance here in US is decent - 10-15 seconds for ~40K records.  Our India teams are seeing >5-10 minutes for the same datasets.  Their internet connection is decent, not great and a variable I cannot control.</p></li>
  <li><p>I am wondering if MS Access is adding some overhead here than can be avoided by a more direct approach:  i.e., letting the server do all/most of the heavy lifting vs Access?</p></li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>I've tinkered with various combinations, with no clear improvement or success:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Parameterized stored procedures from Access</li>
  <li>SQL Passthru queries from Access</li>
  <li>ADO vs DAO</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>Any suggestions, or an overall approach to suggest?  How about moving data as XML?</p>
  
  <p>Note:  I have Access 7, 10, 13 users. </p>
  
  <p>Thanks!</p>