Jim Lawrence
accessd at shaw.ca
Tue Jun 23 14:39:49 CDT 2009
Hi Drew: The reason that MS SQL/SQL express is used in place of the MDB is not as simple as moving from bound to unbound. MS SQL is specifically designed to be in an unbound data environment and the MDB is not... just ask John if you do not agree with me. ;-) It handles multiple users (like multiple users accessing the same data at the same time etc), queued transactions, multi-step transaction, all with full security and performance (like handling thousands of anonymous hits). Having a MDB database is exposing all your data as the MDB can just be copied straight off the website. On the other hand MS SQL can not be stored at a website as it is one step removed from the web site, protected through your IIS or Apache server and therefore safer. If you do not believe me try out the free OpenSource web base extraction app called Back-street Browser (http://www.spadixbd.com/backstreet ) just to see how fast you can backup your website... or anyone's website for that matter. Jim -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Drew Wutka Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:07 AM To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: Re: [AccessD] Learning .Net I concur, about Oracle and SQL Server. We have both here at work. While Oracle is a fine server side database, if I had my choice, I would develop in SQL Server (or Access) first. Oracle to SQL Server, in my view, is similar to Unix to Windows. There are advantages both ways, but to favor one or the other is usually due to experience and mindset. Susan and I wrote an article about using an .mdb behind a website. It is a common misconception that an .mdb is 'less stable' then SQL Server. As a network database, yes, there are issues to overcome. That is because an .mdb is a single file, with no server side database engine. But if the .mdb is on a web server, it actually becomes a single point of entry db. It will run faster then a SQL Server (except for full text indexing), because it requires a fraction of the overhead of a SQL Server. Drew -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Darryl Collins Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 6:14 PM To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' Subject: Re: [AccessD] Learning .Net "Why SQL Server and not Oracle?????" aaaakkkkkgh... For lotsa techie info on why what where and who, Google " Oracle vs SQL Server" For me, it is sheer ease of use, and the fact that SQL Server logic largely makes sense where as Oracle (like the name suggests) seems to involve elements of faith or belief (or disbelief - IMHO of course). For example the Oracle NULL seems gibberish to me: For example: "Though common sense leads us to conclusion that a basket with one apple is clearly different from a basket without apples, in Oracle they are not different. So the empty basket is not different from a non-empty one, but then again, they are also not the same. Putting all that in one sentence, the empty is not equal to anything, nor different from anything, including nothing. It is a bit painful, isn't it? In theory, any binary operation involving NULL will also give NULL, but even that is not consistent. Add NULL to 1 and you will get NULL, but concatenate NULL to 'Donald' and you will get 'Donald'. NULL and empty string, as far as Oracle is concerned, are the same (but then again, not equal). And, to make things worse, there are EMPTY_CLOB and EMPTY_BLOB. Clobs and Blobs are strange enough for themselves, but EMPTY versions exist only to make our life harder." - From http://www.orafaq.com/node/1023 uh huh... make a lot sense? I didn't think so... Besides you can download, install and run SQL Server Express 2008 for free - and my word, what a fantastic product it is. Sure it is missing a few bells and whistles that the enterprise version has, but for most folks doing database stuff it has plenty of grunt under the hood. Rock solid, easy to integrate into existing Excel and Access Front ends and frankly a joy to use. It also runs great on low specced PC's. I have it installed on my Dell Lattitude D600 which is years old now (2GB RAM on XP Pro), and SQL Server just sings along. Process data much faster than having an Access BE - I was suprised, but the speed and stability speak for themselves. As for Oracle - well, I am note quite a member of the "I Hate Oracle" club, but one does exist. And the computer science guy I sit next to at work can give you plenty of reasons why Oracle stinks if you want me to press him on it. :) cheers Darryl. The information contained in this transmission is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain II-VI Proprietary and/or II-VI Business Sensitive material. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. You are notified that any review, retransmission, copying, disclosure, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. -- AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com