This in of itself should be of no concern. If the real complaint is that the db is slow, then that's the real issue and may not be related to the number of records at all. If they think there are just too many records in the tables, then the issue might be that you allowed them to see them in the first place. They should not be poking around in them, and certainly you should not allow for editing directly in tables. If you did, it might explain their objection to size, assuming that's the problem. If the db is operating properly and efficiently, you should have no issues with many, many thousands of records - depending on factors such as whether or not tables contain attachments (another not so good idea for Access tables) and other things such as the lack of indexes, etc. Maybe you should elaborate as to why this seems to be a problem for someone who probably shouldn't be aware of how many records are in the db in the first place.
The short answer is, of course. Just archive the problem tables in another db. Just don't expect to have that "historical" data readily available in the current working db version. What other ill effects that might have is not possible for any of us responders to pinpoint. We have no idea what supporting data would be not available upon which new records depend (such as continuing a sequence of PO numbers). Nor do we know if this would ever result in an old data set with (for example) the same PO numbers as the new db but for different orders.
Last edited by Micron; 01-28-2018 at 10:56 PM.
Reason: clarification
The more we hear silence, the more we begin to think about our value in this universe.
Paraphrase of Professor Brian Cox.