..or maybe Access will work after all...


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: ..or maybe Access will work after all...

  1. #1
    David Jones Guest

    ..or maybe Access will work after all...


    There's lots of reasons why SQL is a good choice, these are :

    1 - Reliability. If the Server crashes when running SQL you can 99.99% sure
    that you won't lose data. But is Access crashes you'll only be 99% sure.
    (I made these figure up - but you get the picture)

    2 - Scalability. SQL server is a great product for multi-user systems and
    it can run fast, but only if you use Stored Procedures. Otherwise SQL Server
    is slower than Access.

    3 - Bells & Whistles. There loads of tools that you get with SQL Server that
    you don't get with Access. Will you use them ? Probably not.

    But Access has got a few things going for it as well :

    1 - Speed. Access is faster (this is because all the complex stuff that makes
    SQL great take RAM and processing power - In Access all these Resources are
    not required)

    2 - Simplicity. Access is easy to get going. SQL isn't.

    CONCLUSION ?
    On your intranet the ASP (running on the Server) will probably be doing all
    the database updating. This will mean that record locking (one of the biggest
    reasons that Access has trouble with multiuser systems) MAY NOT be a problem.


    So look at the skills you have and if you have lots of Access skill then
    stick with Access.

    If you need a mission critical system go for SQL Server (but VERY few systems
    need to be 100% reliable).

    Alternatively you could start with Access and then migrate to SQL Server,
    this will certainly take more time, but provided you choose your column and
    table names carefully you can make the migration easier. If the system is
    a success then you'll be able to justify the time of the migration.

    David Jones
    Cardiff
    UK

  2. #2
    john Guest

    Re: ..or maybe Access will work after all...

    Access is faster? I suppose that really depends on what you are doing... I
    would be willing to take the Pepsi challenge any day against an Access
    database when it comes to processing SQL statements.


    "David Jones" <david.jones@travelink.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3b8c9ba6$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > There's lots of reasons why SQL is a good choice, these are :
    >
    > 1 - Reliability. If the Server crashes when running SQL you can 99.99%

    sure
    > that you won't lose data. But is Access crashes you'll only be 99% sure.
    > (I made these figure up - but you get the picture)
    >
    > 2 - Scalability. SQL server is a great product for multi-user systems and
    > it can run fast, but only if you use Stored Procedures. Otherwise SQL

    Server
    > is slower than Access.
    >
    > 3 - Bells & Whistles. There loads of tools that you get with SQL Server

    that
    > you don't get with Access. Will you use them ? Probably not.
    >
    > But Access has got a few things going for it as well :
    >
    > 1 - Speed. Access is faster (this is because all the complex stuff that

    makes
    > SQL great take RAM and processing power - In Access all these Resources

    are
    > not required)
    >
    > 2 - Simplicity. Access is easy to get going. SQL isn't.
    >
    > CONCLUSION ?
    > On your intranet the ASP (running on the Server) will probably be doing

    all
    > the database updating. This will mean that record locking (one of the

    biggest
    > reasons that Access has trouble with multiuser systems) MAY NOT be a

    problem.
    >
    >
    > So look at the skills you have and if you have lots of Access skill then
    > stick with Access.
    >
    > If you need a mission critical system go for SQL Server (but VERY few

    systems
    > need to be 100% reliable).
    >
    > Alternatively you could start with Access and then migrate to SQL Server,
    > this will certainly take more time, but provided you choose your column

    and
    > table names carefully you can make the migration easier. If the system is
    > a success then you'll be able to justify the time of the migration.
    >
    > David Jones
    > Cardiff
    > UK




  3. #3
    Jason Guest

    Re: ..or maybe Access will work after all...


    I totally agree with Johnny. Its time we move all move from kid stuff (a.k.a
    MS Access) to the industrial strength (a.k.a SQL Server) database environment.


    "john" <johnny> wrote:
    >Access is faster? I suppose that really depends on what you are doing...

    I
    >would be willing to take the Pepsi challenge any day against an Access
    >database when it comes to processing SQL statements.
    >
    >
    >"David Jones" <david.jones@travelink.co.uk> wrote in message
    >news:3b8c9ba6$1@news.devx.com...
    >>
    >> There's lots of reasons why SQL is a good choice, these are :
    >>
    >> 1 - Reliability. If the Server crashes when running SQL you can 99.99%

    >sure
    >> that you won't lose data. But is Access crashes you'll only be 99% sure.
    >> (I made these figure up - but you get the picture)
    >>
    >> 2 - Scalability. SQL server is a great product for multi-user systems

    and
    >> it can run fast, but only if you use Stored Procedures. Otherwise SQL

    >Server
    >> is slower than Access.
    >>
    >> 3 - Bells & Whistles. There loads of tools that you get with SQL Server

    >that
    >> you don't get with Access. Will you use them ? Probably not.
    >>
    >> But Access has got a few things going for it as well :
    >>
    >> 1 - Speed. Access is faster (this is because all the complex stuff that

    >makes
    >> SQL great take RAM and processing power - In Access all these Resources

    >are
    >> not required)
    >>
    >> 2 - Simplicity. Access is easy to get going. SQL isn't.
    >>
    >> CONCLUSION ?
    >> On your intranet the ASP (running on the Server) will probably be doing

    >all
    >> the database updating. This will mean that record locking (one of the

    >biggest
    >> reasons that Access has trouble with multiuser systems) MAY NOT be a

    >problem.
    >>
    >>
    >> So look at the skills you have and if you have lots of Access skill then
    >> stick with Access.
    >>
    >> If you need a mission critical system go for SQL Server (but VERY few

    >systems
    >> need to be 100% reliable).
    >>
    >> Alternatively you could start with Access and then migrate to SQL Server,
    >> this will certainly take more time, but provided you choose your column

    >and
    >> table names carefully you can make the migration easier. If the system

    is
    >> a success then you'll be able to justify the time of the migration.
    >>
    >> David Jones
    >> Cardiff
    >> UK

    >
    >



  4. #4
    Gary Guest

    Re: ..or maybe Access will work after all...


    "David Jones" <david.jones@travelink.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >There's lots of reasons why SQL is a good choice, these are :
    >
    >1 - Reliability. If the Server crashes when running SQL you can 99.99% sure
    >that you won't lose data. But is Access crashes you'll only be 99% sure.
    >(I made these figure up - but you get the picture)
    >
    >2 - Scalability. SQL server is a great product for multi-user systems and
    >it can run fast, but only if you use Stored Procedures. Otherwise SQL Server
    >is slower than Access.
    >
    >3 - Bells & Whistles. There loads of tools that you get with SQL Server

    that
    >you don't get with Access. Will you use them ? Probably not.
    >
    >But Access has got a few things going for it as well :
    >
    >1 - Speed. Access is faster (this is because all the complex stuff that

    makes
    >SQL great take RAM and processing power - In Access all these Resources

    are
    >not required)
    >
    >2 - Simplicity. Access is easy to get going. SQL isn't.
    >
    >CONCLUSION ?
    >On your intranet the ASP (running on the Server) will probably be doing

    all
    >the database updating. This will mean that record locking (one of the biggest
    >reasons that Access has trouble with multiuser systems) MAY NOT be a problem.
    >
    >
    >So look at the skills you have and if you have lots of Access skill then
    >stick with Access.
    >
    >If you need a mission critical system go for SQL Server (but VERY few systems
    >need to be 100% reliable).
    >
    >Alternatively you could start with Access and then migrate to SQL Server,
    >this will certainly take more time, but provided you choose your column

    and
    >table names carefully you can make the migration easier. If the system is
    >a success then you'll be able to justify the time of the migration.
    >
    >David Jones
    >Cardiff
    >UK


    I agree. I have written numerous Intranet and Internet apps based just on
    Access. I always start with the lowest denominator and work up. After all
    a data mdb costs nothing to distribute. You can migrate an Access application
    to SQL server in a matter of minutes if you know what you are doing. OK you
    eventually will want to write stored procedures to replace sql statements
    but this can be done in a phased approach.

    Another factor to consider is that most people who have NT hosting provided
    by an ISP don't have access to SQL server. Its fine in a Corporate environment,
    but for smaller companies MS Access is the only way forward. Cheap and cheerful.





  5. #5
    john Guest

    Re: ..or maybe Access will work after all...

    If you want cheap and cheerful then go for Linux and PostgreSQL. If you
    still want cheap and Windows, then get MySQL.



    "Gary" <g.bennison@intralogic-solutions.com> wrote in message
    news:3b8d4f26$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > "David Jones" <david.jones@travelink.co.uk> wrote:
    > >
    > >There's lots of reasons why SQL is a good choice, these are :
    > >
    > >1 - Reliability. If the Server crashes when running SQL you can 99.99%

    sure
    > >that you won't lose data. But is Access crashes you'll only be 99% sure.
    > >(I made these figure up - but you get the picture)
    > >
    > >2 - Scalability. SQL server is a great product for multi-user systems and
    > >it can run fast, but only if you use Stored Procedures. Otherwise SQL

    Server
    > >is slower than Access.
    > >
    > >3 - Bells & Whistles. There loads of tools that you get with SQL Server

    > that
    > >you don't get with Access. Will you use them ? Probably not.
    > >
    > >But Access has got a few things going for it as well :
    > >
    > >1 - Speed. Access is faster (this is because all the complex stuff that

    > makes
    > >SQL great take RAM and processing power - In Access all these Resources

    > are
    > >not required)
    > >
    > >2 - Simplicity. Access is easy to get going. SQL isn't.
    > >
    > >CONCLUSION ?
    > >On your intranet the ASP (running on the Server) will probably be doing

    > all
    > >the database updating. This will mean that record locking (one of the

    biggest
    > >reasons that Access has trouble with multiuser systems) MAY NOT be a

    problem.
    > >
    > >
    > >So look at the skills you have and if you have lots of Access skill then
    > >stick with Access.
    > >
    > >If you need a mission critical system go for SQL Server (but VERY few

    systems
    > >need to be 100% reliable).
    > >
    > >Alternatively you could start with Access and then migrate to SQL Server,
    > >this will certainly take more time, but provided you choose your column

    > and
    > >table names carefully you can make the migration easier. If the system is
    > >a success then you'll be able to justify the time of the migration.
    > >
    > >David Jones
    > >Cardiff
    > >UK

    >
    > I agree. I have written numerous Intranet and Internet apps based just on
    > Access. I always start with the lowest denominator and work up. After all
    > a data mdb costs nothing to distribute. You can migrate an Access

    application
    > to SQL server in a matter of minutes if you know what you are doing. OK

    you
    > eventually will want to write stored procedures to replace sql statements
    > but this can be done in a phased approach.
    >
    > Another factor to consider is that most people who have NT hosting

    provided
    > by an ISP don't have access to SQL server. Its fine in a Corporate

    environment,
    > but for smaller companies MS Access is the only way forward. Cheap and

    cheerful.
    >
    >
    >
    >




  6. #6
    Euan Garden Guest

    Re: ..or maybe Access will work after all...

    Also remember that the Jet database engine is effectively depracated, ie its
    in care and maintenance mode. The last SP for it has been delivered.

    -Euan

    "David Jones" <david.jones@travelink.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3b8c9ba6$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > There's lots of reasons why SQL is a good choice, these are :
    >
    > 1 - Reliability. If the Server crashes when running SQL you can 99.99%

    sure
    > that you won't lose data. But is Access crashes you'll only be 99% sure.
    > (I made these figure up - but you get the picture)
    >
    > 2 - Scalability. SQL server is a great product for multi-user systems and
    > it can run fast, but only if you use Stored Procedures. Otherwise SQL

    Server
    > is slower than Access.
    >
    > 3 - Bells & Whistles. There loads of tools that you get with SQL Server

    that
    > you don't get with Access. Will you use them ? Probably not.
    >
    > But Access has got a few things going for it as well :
    >
    > 1 - Speed. Access is faster (this is because all the complex stuff that

    makes
    > SQL great take RAM and processing power - In Access all these Resources

    are
    > not required)
    >
    > 2 - Simplicity. Access is easy to get going. SQL isn't.
    >
    > CONCLUSION ?
    > On your intranet the ASP (running on the Server) will probably be doing

    all
    > the database updating. This will mean that record locking (one of the

    biggest
    > reasons that Access has trouble with multiuser systems) MAY NOT be a

    problem.
    >
    >
    > So look at the skills you have and if you have lots of Access skill then
    > stick with Access.
    >
    > If you need a mission critical system go for SQL Server (but VERY few

    systems
    > need to be 100% reliable).
    >
    > Alternatively you could start with Access and then migrate to SQL Server,
    > this will certainly take more time, but provided you choose your column

    and
    > table names carefully you can make the migration easier. If the system is
    > a success then you'll be able to justify the time of the migration.
    >
    > David Jones
    > Cardiff
    > UK




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center