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

[David Jones]

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

[john]

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

[Jason]

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
>
>

[Gary]

"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.

[john]

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.
>
>
>
>

[Euan Garden]

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