[dba-SQLServer] Access BE to SQL

Actually John, you can reference home made functions in SQL Server, 
they just have to be created in SQL Server and not Access.  I use 
them all the time.  Yes, he has some light areas and number 1 is one 
of them.  There is a lot more naming that you should do in SQL Server 
that you do in Access, indexes, foreign key relationships, 
constraints, etc.  And redesigning the application to use stored 
procedures, after creating all of the stored procedures, is going to 
take a while.

At 09:40 PM 10/5/2006, you wrote:
>Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 21:06:31 -0400
>From: "JWColby" <jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com>
>Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Access BE to SQL
>To: <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
>Message-ID: <004801c6e8e3$a9dcadf0$647aa8c0 at m6805>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
>Looks good.  Now...
>
>As with all time estimating, a very realistic time estimate can be found by
>taking the number and multiplying it by 3.  Then take the unit and increase
>it by 1.  In other words, if you think it will take 15 minutes, multiply 15
>times 3 (45) and up the minutes to hours.
>
>Other than that, your estimates look fine to me.
>
>Seriously though,
>
>1.  Migrate Data to SQL.  Resetting of autonumbers, referential integrity,
>some indexes.  332 instances @ 10 minutes = 55 hours
>
>Multiply by at LEAST 3.
>
>2.  Convert queries to views.   Convert high-impact queries into Views and
>Stored Procedures.  For each of those migrated queries, redesign filtering
>code to pass parameters back to SQL Server.  1451 instances @ 15 minutes =
>362.75 hours.  Limiting to high impact queries: 300 instances @ 15 minutes =
>75 hours.
>
>Multiply by at LEAST 3.
>
>Etc.
>
>Etc.
>
>Etc.
>
>And yes, I am serious.  You will have no clue until you get in there what a
>mess you have.  Access allows things that SQL Server does not, such as
>referencing home built functions in VBA inside of queries.  How do you
>replace those?  Referencing built-in VBA functions inside of queries.
>Easier to replace but still often not trivial.  You have to learn the
>similarities and differences between the Access version and the SQL Server
>equivalent.  And what about data type differences?
>
>You will end up completely rewriting portions of your application inside of
>SQL Server.  The more "Access tricks" in the Access app, the tougher it will
>be to rewrite.
>
>And one thing you missed completely is testing of the changes to ensure that
>the result still does whatever it did originally, with exactly the same
>result.
>
>Access was designed from the ground up to be a RAD environment and in order
>to achieve this it gives you power beyond anything that SQL Server has ever
>imagined.
>
>I will be watching this thread closely, I can tell you that.
>
>John W. Colby