Why choose SQL Express over Access?
ljh
work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no dependencies?
james....@gmail.com
to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked. And, since
your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify for
your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question.
So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them.
1) It's free.
2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server.
Sahil Malik [MVP C#]
- SQL Express (or SQL Server in general) will scale better to multiple
users.
- It will give you a "way out" when your DB exceeds 4GB
- It will be easier to maintain from a DBA point of view (centralized
backups *.*)
- It will give you a much richer feature set - notification, SQLCLR, better
T-SQL*.*
- It will give you better performance (No OleDb necessary)
- You won't have to compact it as often
- Better support for data types/indexes etc. etc.
- Other reasons.
The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And frankly
SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these name
changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications anyway.
- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com
"ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
news:kP1fg.66184$MM6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
ljh
with your application, whereas using SQL Server Express requires that you
install SQL Server Express and have it running in the backgound.
In the event that I use SQL Server Express and need to redistribute it with
my app, is there a silent install available?
<james....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149020977.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
ljh
The closest I can get is a SQL Anywhere link that actually shows you
something called "Remoteware" (whatever the hell that is) -
http://www.sybase.com/products/mobilesolutions/sqlanywhere .
I don't really trust Borland anyway. They jumped right in line with the
whole .Net mantra - when they had a better way of doing things and they have
abandoned Kylix without ever admitting to doing so.
They do enough to keep the Borland name alive....but that seems to be about
it.
"Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactme...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uARMMlCh...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Frank Rizzo
> I can't find anything on SQL Anywhere - even on the Sybase site.
>
> The closest I can get is a SQL Anywhere link that actually shows you
> something called "Remoteware" (whatever the hell that is) -
> http://www.sybase.com/products/mobilesolutions/sqlanywhere .
Yeah, they change product names every 5 minutes, which is why they'll
never amount to anything. However, I used the product a couple of years
ago and it is solid. It has all the drivers and easy of use and
surprising performance and all that.
> I don't really trust Borland anyway. They jumped right in line with the
I don't think Sybase has anything to do with Borland. You got your
vendors confused.
Frank Rizzo
> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And frankly
> SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these name
> changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications anyway.
There is one more Access advantage: it'll run on Windows XP Home
Edition, while SQL Express will not (requires XP Pro). So if you are
targeting mom&pop shops or the home market, either do Access or stick to
MSDE.
Regards
John B
> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application to
> work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no dependencies?
>
>
>
If you get a db size over 1/2 GB or so in access you will probably run
into trouble with corruptions etc.
If you eventually need to upgrade to full Sql Server then its a straight
backup / restore operation of the database and you are up and running.
If you only need and will only ever need a very simple db mechanism then
access might be the way to go.
JB
![William Stacey [MVP]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjUtEanr0b0I_eVupbLDNja5jk09ktJpLjlmTx6Lj38Gm7mCVsZp=s40-c)
William Stacey [MVP]
summer. 1.4mb with 7 dlls.
http://blogs.msdn.com/stevelasker/archive/2006/04/10/SqlEverywhereInfo.aspx
--
William Stacey [MVP]
"ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
news:Dm2fg.66188$MM6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
William Stacey [MVP]
most part, it is Sql Mobile with a license change that will run anywhere
(XP, etc).
--
William Stacey [MVP]
"ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
news:7t2fg.66189$MM6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
ljh
rent-to-own thing. The software they have now is generic and the service
sucks. They want a personalized solution for thier rather unique product
line.
Thing is......they want all stores to share information (real-time of
course), they want information stored locally in case there is an internet
outgae, and they don't want to buy a SQL Server license for every store.
So.....I need to come up with a free way to have shared, locally replicated
data at each store.
Theoretically it is pretty simple.
Practically, its a pain in the ass.
"John B" <jbng...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:447cc...@news.iprimus.com.au...
ljh
It doesn't look like they'll let us use it to power webservices under IIS
though.
That would suck. Allowing its use under IIS would make hosted web
development so much easier!
It would let small companies with big ideas give those ideas a shot at
succeeding without spending several thousand dollars for SQL Server.
But, I don't think MS is all that interested in helping small businesses
grow. And, that's too bad. Doing so would actually fatten the bottom line
at MS as the little businesses need more MS licenses and maybe a "grown up"
version of SQL Server.
If they did, who knows, it might even unseat MySQL as the web db king.
Thanks for the great link!
"William Stacey [MVP]" <william...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Odp%23lzDhG...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
ljh
whole JBuilder collaboration thing that threw me.
They are definitely not the same company.
"Frank Rizzo" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:%23rBSlsD...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]
then why not look into SQLite? There's an ADO.NET and an ADO.NET 2.0 provider
(thanks to Robert Simpson) and it screams compared to MS Access. Not even an
MDAC dependency.
Peter
--
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:
http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
ljh
I can use the VS.Net 2005 tools to create the tables, columns, etc.
I type "sqlite3 test.db" at the C:\ prompt (where I have a copy of
sqlite3.exe. Then, I type ".exit" and look for the empyt db....but there is
nothing there.
Any suggestions?
"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <pbro...@yahoo.nospammin.com> wrote in message
news:EAA36952-A294-48B8...@microsoft.com...
Sahil Malik [MVP C#]
SM :)
"William Stacey [MVP]" <william...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23RVmO%23DhGH...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Sahil Malik [MVP C#]
- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com
"Frank Rizzo" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:%23j9fctD...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
ljh
with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking".
Sounds all fluffy and sweet....but what it means is that you won't be able
to use SQL\e to easily deploy webservices (actually you can;t use it to
deploy them at all - easy or not).
This goes right along with my experience with every single MS product I have
ever purchased. Thier slogan should be "When you need it *almost* right."
Oh well.....I'm still looking into the free SQLite. It has an add-in for
VS.Net 2005 support and is not limited to 4GB of data. Oh yeah...it's only
one file (no dependencies) and it's completely free.
I'll let you know how my testing with it goes.
"Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactme...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23YpMqGF...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
William Stacey [MVP]
| though.
Couldn't you use SQL Express for that?
William Stacey [MVP]
| with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking".
Not sure how they would do that other then via license. I mean a sql query
is not going to look any different coming from asp.net page or from your own
host?
| Sounds all fluffy and sweet....but what it means is that you won't be able
| to use SQL\e to easily deploy webservices (actually you can;t use it to
| deploy them at all - easy or not).
Again, I think you should at least be able to use SQL Express and it is
free. IMHO, that product is a sweet and generous gift from MS.
--
wjs
ljh
solution like SQLite or SQL\e provides.
Especially when you have a hosted web-app.....SQL\e would be perfect for
that. Nothing to "install" (i.e. register) on the hosts servers.
It's just that MS wants you to pay to do a decent web-app. IMHO, it helps
them control competition somewhat (at least from the little guys) to thier
web-centric offerings. What other reasons could thier be to specifically
disable it under any IIS process? Greed?
As far as I can see....if you're small and have a great idea, MS SQL is
probably NOT the thing to use (at least SQLite is easier to deploy and has
greater capacity than SQL\e or SQL\x).
"William Stacey [MVP]" <william...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uycu0lFh...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
ljh
>| Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking compatability
> | with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking".
>
> Not sure how they would do that other then via license. I mean a sql
> query
> is not going to look any different coming from asp.net page or from your
> own
> host?
Not sure.....that's the word I got back from Steve Lasker when I emailed him
earlier today.
>
> | Sounds all fluffy and sweet....but what it means is that you won't be
> able
> | to use SQL\e to easily deploy webservices (actually you can;t use it to
> | deploy them at all - easy or not).
>
> Again, I think you should at least be able to use SQL Express and it is
> free. IMHO, that product is a sweet and generous gift from MS.
It is....for machines where you can install anything you want. For ASP.Net
hosted webservers, it sucks.
JimD
> I'm trying it out. But, I can't even get it to create an empty db so that
> I can use the VS.Net 2005 tools to create the tables, columns, etc.
>
> I type "sqlite3 test.db" at the C:\ prompt (where I have a copy of
> sqlite3.exe. Then, I type ".exit" and look for the empyt db....but there is
> nothing there.
>
> Any suggestions?
Just use the example C# code on the site:
http://adodotnetsqlite.sourceforge.net/
Click on "Documentation & Examples" and then click on "C# SourceCode
Example". I just copied-n-pasted the code into a Console App project
and ran it and the DB was created for me. The DB is created in the same
folder as your compiled exe. So if you do a debug build look in the
Debug folder.
Sqlite is very nice, very fast, and supports most of SQL92, databases up
to 2 terabytes, BLOBs and a lot more all either a 250KB dll or the
reduced featur 150KB dll. Best of all is that it is Open Source. No
restrictions on usage. SQL Server is great for a full DB. However, for
anything less, MS just doesn't have a good offering IMO. I don't want
to deal with proprietary restrictions on where/how I can include a
database file with my app.
Give Sqlite a shot, I think you will be pretty happy with it.
The steps to do a quick test console app:
Download Sqlite. Get version 3 without the TCL bindings:
http://www.sqlite.org/download.html
Download the ADO.Net data provider named Finisar.SQLite. Note, this
comes with a dll version of sqlite, however I use the version from the
official site listed above.
http://adodotnetsqlite.sourceforge.net/
Copy the sqlite dll to your system path, C:\windows or c:\windows\system32.
Create a new C# Console Application. Add a reference to the SQLite.Net
dll that you downloaded.
Now you can copy-n-paste the example code in your Main() method from here:
http://adodotnetsqlite.sourceforge.net/documentation/csharp_example.php
Happy hacking!
Jim
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
JimD
Central FL, USA, Earth, Sol
JimD
<snip>
I forgot to mention about the connection string in the example. The
connection string is:
Data Source=database.db;Version=3;New=True;Compress=True;
The New=True token says to create a new database. So every time you run
the test program, you are creating a new database, overwriting the old.
You probably don't want to do that with a real application. So you
would only use the New=True in a connection string when you want to
create a database for the first time. After that, you can either remove
New=True or change it to New=False.
ljh
.Net Data Provider for ADO.NET 2.0/VS 2005 is out and includes design-time
support. You can now create databases, design queries, and drag-and-drop
tables to create typed datasets within Visual Studio 2005. "
Is this capability still in there? I didn't see any examples of this. If
SQLite is as easy to use as this quote seems to make it (i.e. as easy to use
in the ide as SQL Express) we may just have a winner here.
"JimD" <J...@keeliegirl.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:yu8fg.8864$eQ4....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
ljh
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=489095
"ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
news:7e9fg.67012$MM6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Sahil Malik [MVP C#]
fledged SQL engine, sure deployment is a pain, but migrating to a fullblown
SQL Server is relatively painless.
Also, can you elaborate -
>>| Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking
>>compatability
>> | with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking".
?
- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com
"ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
news:mo7fg.66883$MM6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Cor Ligthert [MVP]
> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application
> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no
> dependencies?
>
I see not much reasons why you cannot use better the Jet Engine over SQL
Express, if you want:
That every user can remove the database file at any time he wants
That your data is processed relatively slow
That you cannot use it as an InterNet database withouth webservice or
other webpart
To tell the path at deployment time
Create extra program parts for as the user wants to relocate his
database
Not much security of the data.
To deploy an empty database (wich is great if a user reinstalls and
overwrites his exising database)
Just my thought,
Cor
William (Bill) Vaughn
not designed to do so but SQL Express (still free) is.
Microsoft has done more for small business than any company I know. It now
offers three versions of its database technology for free. SQL Everywhere,
SQL Express and SQL Express Advanced Services that includes the Reporting
Services engine as well as Full Text Search.
If you just want to bash Microsoft, find some other forum.
--
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________
"ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
news:_J4fg.66487$MM6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
ljh
usually don't control the HOSTED servers) and that you could get more data
into SQL Everywhere (or SQLite for that matter) simply by using the
available disk space than you do with most hosted website's db plans (which
will include hosted SQL Express servers) sucks!
The fact that MS has an edition of Mobile SQL that they are making available
for everything except IIS use sucks!
The fact that Micrsoft added code to SQL Everywhere to PREVENT it from being
used in an IIS process sucks! What about that don't you get?
Microsoft again makes a valiant run downfield with the ball.....only to stop
and sit on the 1 yard line.
"Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactme...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OrGZK8Gh...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
ljh
"William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRe...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:OmWkZkHh...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
ljh
snap.
But, it lacks any means of database manipulation (i.e. adding/removing
tables or columns or anything) from within the IDE.
So, ease of use is definitely not up there with SQL Express.
"ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
news:Ue9fg.67013$MM6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]
Query Analyzer.
A copy is included in the download for this article:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/20051119.asp
Peter
--
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:
http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)
Ability to do asynch apps (Service Broker)
Server model instead of file system model
Complete support for stored procedures
Full SQL Server security model
Ability to run queries as another user, completely isolating the database
from the user
Better support for types in SQL Server than Access (in .NET)
Ability to schedule backups within the engine
Support for more types than Access
Ability to use XML as a datatype with querying capabilities
Is that enough, or should I go on?
--
Gregory A. Beamer
*************************************************
Think Outside the Box!
*************************************************
"ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
news:kP1fg.66184$MM6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Sahil Malik [MVP C#]
> being used in an IIS process sucks! What about that don't you get?
First of all "CALM DOWN".
> The fact that you can't control SQL Express (due to the fact that you
> usually don't control the HOSTED servers) and that you could get more data
> into SQL Everywhere (or SQLite for that matter) simply by using the
> available disk space than you do with most hosted website's db plans
> (which will include hosted SQL Express servers) sucks!
Moving SQL Express to SQL Server is a peice of cake. I don't see what the
big unsolvable problem here is.
- Sahil Malik [MVP]
http://blah.winsmarts.com
"ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
news:ogbfg.1420$EX2...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Mike Lowery
"ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
ljh
would come into play in a database application?
Why would you store XML in its native format instead of breaking it down
into its component fields for storage and seaarch?
"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamM...@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
message news:O6q4onKh...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Jos Roijakkers
>
> There is one more Access advantage: it'll run on Windows XP Home
> Edition, while SQL Express will not (requires XP Pro). So if you are
> targeting mom&pop shops or the home market, either do Access or stick
> to MSDE.
>
> Regards
>
This is not true. SQL Express runs under XP Home as well (at least it does
on my machine). However, it does not support remote connections by default.
William (Bill) Vaughn
Of course even the home system could host SQL Server as a service if you
throw the right switches.
--
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________
"Jos Roijakkers" <j.roij...@qred-it.nl> wrote in message
news:5d4a1f3de97e8...@news.microsoft.com...
_DD
>Sahil Malik [MVP C#] wrote:
>> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And frankly
>> SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these name
>> changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications anyway.
>
>There is one more Access advantage: it'll run on Windows XP Home
>Edition, while SQL Express will not (requires XP Pro). So if you are
>targeting mom&pop shops or the home market, either do Access or stick to
>MSDE.
There are lots of places where an app that normally runs on high-end
XP Pro machines would have to run on XP Home as well. Does this mean
that applications must fit the common denominator: MSDE? I didn't
think MSDE was still supported.
And what about XP Media Center? I'd love to find out about future
plans to adapt to MC and Home editions, assuming there is no way to
target them now.
steve
Can you point to something that documents your assertion that SQL Express
does not run on XP Home? Runs fine on my XP Home test machine....Haven't
been able to test access across a network to SQL/e on XP Home.
"Frank Rizzo" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:%23j9fctD...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Sahil Malik [MVP C#] wrote:
>> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And
>> frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these
>> name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications
>> anyway.
>
> There is one more Access advantage: it'll run on Windows XP Home Edition,
> while SQL Express will not (requires XP Pro). So if you are targeting
> mom&pop shops or the home market, either do Access or stick to MSDE.
>
> Regards
Sahil Malik [MVP C#]
I'm an INETA speaker and MVP myself, and nearly don't have the same pedigree
as Bill Vaughn, but I must agree with his views on Microsoft.
- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com
http://blah.winsmarts.com
"ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
news:aibfg.1442$EX2...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
ljh
"Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactme...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u3xKRLRh...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Sahil Malik [MVP C#]
--
- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com
http://blah.winsmarts.com
"_DD" <_@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:octr72ll2st47a5oc...@4ax.com...
William (Bill) Vaughn
on solid ground before impugning our honesty in a public forum. If you
really knew me, if you really understood where I have stood for the last 20
years, you would not be saying anything about how I coddle Microsoft or show
bias toward their products. From time to time I have been highly critical of
Microsoft--even as an employee (for 14 years). Microsoft has not always
liked to hear what I have said, but they have listened--just as they listen
to every one with any credibility at all. I for one have just finished my
11th book on this subject and yes, this book like all the others talks about
what works and what does not.
Do you think you fall into that category?
--
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________
"ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
news:3Cqfg.4977$8e2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Sahil Malik [MVP C#]
a pig. He is enjoying it, and you're getting dirty.
- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com
http://blah.winsmarts.com
"William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRe...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:O8K6C0Rh...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
_davis
>Of course you must....
Just curious...what are you getting out of this? Mr Malik and Mr
Vaughn have complete credibility and both have written books on
database programming. Still, you've answered your own question: You
should use Access. Just make sure it's not Microsoft Access cause
that would be bad.
ljh
> Excuse me? Are you accusing us of something?
You accussed me, Billy. Remember this...."If you just want to bash
Microsoft, find some other forum."?
You take an accusatory tone with me. You attack my posts without reading
them (if you had, you'd have seen that the theme here was not one of "just
bashing Microsoft"). And, YOU have the audacity to ask me if I am
questioning YOUR integrity?
Well, I am questioning your integrity.
Not because I have reason to outside what you have posted here, but simply
because of the tact that you used when accusing me of "just bashing
Microsoft". That's something that only a Microsoft zealot could have
possibly read into this entire thread.
You are acting like a zealot. Your reaction to my dissappointment with
Microsoft's decision-to-date on SQL\e and the typical way in which they
price thier products out of reach of many small businesses was one of
etremism and showed a complete lack of understanding of my comments as they
related to the entire thread.
I accept you at your word that you call Microsoft out when need be (as
don't have time to verify this myself). But, for you to characterize my
entire thread as simple "Microsoft bashing" because I expressed my
unflattering opinions about some of Microsoft's actions is both
unprofessional and dishonest.
I am not familiar with your writings. They may be quite well done.
However, they are irrelevant when your actions here have shown you to be
quick to jump to conclusions of "Microsoft bashing" based on less than 10%
of the content of the thread.
Publishing a book niether makes you a scholar nor an adept teacher. It
makes you an author. My congratulations on your publishing feats. I hope
you published works better thought out than your biting response to a single
post of mine.
As for answering your question ("Do you think that you fall into that
category?")... This is both arrogant and ignorant at the same time. Quite
a feat for a published author.
I look forward to your thoughts on anything that I post. But, please do not
characterize me or my threads based on a minority of the postings therein.
Jim Hubbard
Frans Bouma [C# MVP]
> Just curious......can you tell me a situation where using XML as a
> datatype would come into play in a database application?
>
> Why would you store XML in its native format instead of breaking it
> down into its component fields for storage and seaarch?
In general, people should avoid Xml typed fields to avoid
'table-in-table' syndrome, which effectively kills your relational
model. However there are situations where it can be helpful. One is the
situation where the user of your software is able to add custom fields
to a table. You can store these in XML and query them as well (although
it's not ideal, I admit)
Another can be to store xml data in an xml column, although you can
also use a Text column for that if you want to of course.
FB
>
>
> "Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamM...@comcast.netNoSpamM>
> wrote in message news:O6q4onKh...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > Let's see:
> >
> > Ability to do asynch apps (Service Broker)
> > Server model instead of file system model
> > Complete support for stored procedures
> > Full SQL Server security model
> > Ability to run queries as another user, completely isolating the
> > database from the user
> > Better support for types in SQL Server than Access (in .NET)
> > Ability to schedule backups within the engine
> > Support for more types than Access
> > Ability to use XML as a datatype with querying capabilities
> >
> > Is that enough, or should I go on?
> >
> > --
> > Gregory A. Beamer
> >
> > *************************************************
> > Think Outside the Box!
> > *************************************************
> > "ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
> > news:kP1fg.66184$MM6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed
> application >> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database
> which has no >> dependencies?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frans Bouma [C# MVP]
>
> "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRe...@nwlink.com> wrote in
> message news:O8K6C0Rh...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > Excuse me? Are you accusing us of something?
>
> You accussed me, Billy. Remember this...."If you just want to bash
> Microsoft, find some other forum."?
>
> You take an accusatory tone with me. You attack my posts without
> reading them (if you had, you'd have seen that the theme here was not
> one of "just bashing Microsoft"). And, YOU have the audacity to ask
> me if I am questioning YOUR integrity?
>
> Well, I am questioning your integrity.
I don't think that's beneficial to the discussion.
> Not because I have reason to outside what you have posted here, but
> simply because of the tact that you used when accusing me of "just
> bashing Microsoft". That's something that only a Microsoft zealot
> could have possibly read into this entire thread.
While Bill and I are often not agreeing on a subject, I can tell you
he's honest in what he says. He might have overreacted a bit in his
previous reply, but let me explain abit why I think he did and I fully
understand why he did: we as MVP's are often accused of being biased
towards Microsoft, shutting our eyes for the real problems, ignoring
the difficulties Joe Developer has to fight with because that would
hurt Microsoft etc. etc.
That's not the case, far from it. Sure, there are MVP's who only
preach 'good news' and won't say a bad word about MS or its products.
Though you won't find these MVPs in the newsgroups answering questions
of others. So please re-consider what you said.
> You are acting like a zealot. Your reaction to my dissappointment
> with Microsoft's decision-to-date on SQL\e and the typical way in
> which they price thier products out of reach of many small businesses
> was one of etremism and showed a complete lack of understanding of my
> comments as they related to the entire thread.
Perhaps your 'packaging' of the 'message' wasn't matching the message
it was packaging :).
> I accept you at your word that you call Microsoft out when need be
> (as don't have time to verify this myself). But, for you to
> characterize my entire thread as simple "Microsoft bashing" because I
> expressed my unflattering opinions about some of Microsoft's actions
> is both unprofessional and dishonest.
Read between the lines. We have to do that with your texts as well. If
I say "This SUCKS!!!", I might be right, but no-one will listen. Trust
me, if you want to get a point across, it's of upmost importancy that
the audience of which you want the attention of is willing to read your
texts to the last line.
> As for answering your question ("Do you think that you fall into that
> category?")... This is both arrogant and ignorant at the same time.
> Quite a feat for a published author.
I have to agree in this, but this is usenet, we all forget everyone
can read what we say from time to time.
FB
Frans Bouma [C# MVP]
> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed
> application to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which
> has no dependencies?
If you already know the answer, why ask the question?
Furthermore, MS doesn't include the JET engine anymore in the MDAC
installations (if I'm not mistaken), something to consider in your
decision. (which means effectively, that they want to keep people from
using .mdb files as a database for an application which isn't build in
MS Access, as the JET engine is only distributed with Office today (if
I'm not mistaken).
Miha Markic [MVP C#]
> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment".
You still have to install jet engine though (dll hell, registry, com, you
name it)...
Or did you mean FBD for database files?
BTW, i liked the pig anecdote :-)
--
Miha Markic [MVP C#]
RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com
Blog: http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/
ljh
Isn't the MDAC just a related set of DLLs? In many cases, you can simply
place dependent DLLs in the same directory as your exe and all will run just
fine - no registering amything and no chance that "DLL Hell" (which I don't
believe exists) can getcha.
I may try this out myself on a clean box and see......
"Miha Markic [MVP C#]" <miha at rthand com> wrote in message
news:e8IRFZWh...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
ljh
"Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <perseus.us...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:xn0emyfe...@news.microsoft.com...
> ljh wrote:
>
>>
>> "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRe...@nwlink.com> wrote in
>> message news:O8K6C0Rh...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> > Excuse me? Are you accusing us of something?
>>
>> You accussed me, Billy. Remember this...."If you just want to bash
>> Microsoft, find some other forum."?
>>
>> You take an accusatory tone with me. You attack my posts without
>> reading them (if you had, you'd have seen that the theme here was not
>> one of "just bashing Microsoft"). And, YOU have the audacity to ask
>> me if I am questioning YOUR integrity?
>>
>> Well, I am questioning your integrity.
>
> I don't think that's beneficial to the discussion.
You're right. I need to do a better job of not drifting off topic.
>
>> Not because I have reason to outside what you have posted here, but
>> simply because of the tact that you used when accusing me of "just
>> bashing Microsoft". That's something that only a Microsoft zealot
>> could have possibly read into this entire thread.
>
> While Bill and I are often not agreeing on a subject, I can tell you
> he's honest in what he says. He might have overreacted a bit in his
> previous reply, but let me explain abit why I think he did and I fully
> understand why he did: we as MVP's are often accused of being biased
> towards Microsoft, shutting our eyes for the real problems, ignoring
> the difficulties Joe Developer has to fight with because that would
> hurt Microsoft etc. etc.
>
> That's not the case, far from it. Sure, there are MVP's who only
> preach 'good news' and won't say a bad word about MS or its products.
> Though you won't find these MVPs in the newsgroups answering questions
> of others. So please re-consider what you said.
>
I do not know Bill personally and I have not read any of his published works
(as I stated here). I can only go by his actions and comments here - and he
can only go by mine.
Although Bill may be well-known in ceretain circles, we all don't travel in
the same circles.
And, although it certainly doesn't look like it here, I am a HUGE fan of
Microsoft. When I speak to Linux OS and programming people, I sing the
praises of Microsoft and VB. Linux could learn a lot from Microsoft, and
would benefit greatly for it.
It has been my experience that singing Microsoft's praises in a Microsoft
newsgroup may not be the most efficient use of time. If we hated Microsoft,
we wouldn't be here trying to learn how to use the products better. But
that too is off topic. The original question is still one I am debating. I
can see strengths and weaknesses in both products. Matching the right one
with my client is the trick.
Microsoft has done many great things. For me, that makes it all the more
dissappointing to see them (IMHO) tripping at the goal line so often.
I do not envy Microsoft's position. Millions of people to satisfy - and no
way to please them all. But, I honestly believe that allowinf SQL\e to be
used under an IIS process would be something that would excite the vast
majority of them - and I cannot see a good reason for blocking that use.
>> You are acting like a zealot. Your reaction to my dissappointment
>> with Microsoft's decision-to-date on SQL\e and the typical way in
>> which they price thier products out of reach of many small businesses
>> was one of etremism and showed a complete lack of understanding of my
>> comments as they related to the entire thread.
>
> Perhaps your 'packaging' of the 'message' wasn't matching the message
> it was packaging :).
>
I must learn not to respond to posts after I get very tired. I should just
go to bed and respond the next day - a little more level headed and less
sleep deprived.
When I make that mistake, I tend to (as you have seen here) write more from
emotion than fact. This is not helpful to the thread at all. I will try
and not repeat that mistake.
>> I accept you at your word that you call Microsoft out when need be
>> (as don't have time to verify this myself). But, for you to
>> characterize my entire thread as simple "Microsoft bashing" because I
>> expressed my unflattering opinions about some of Microsoft's actions
>> is both unprofessional and dishonest.
>
> Read between the lines. We have to do that with your texts as well. If
> I say "This SUCKS!!!", I might be right, but no-one will listen. Trust
> me, if you want to get a point across, it's of upmost importancy that
> the audience of which you want the attention of is willing to read your
> texts to the last line.
You are right.
>
>> As for answering your question ("Do you think that you fall into that
>> category?")... This is both arrogant and ignorant at the same time.
>> Quite a feat for a published author.
>
> I have to agree in this, but this is usenet, we all forget everyone
> can read what we say from time to time.
Yes they can. It may behoove us to leave a cleaner image for those that
will sort through our trash when we're gone and cannot explain our
(sometimes) thoughtless actions.
ljh
ljh
I am thinking of coding a data store that many store locations will use to
get national sales averages. Each location sends in its data in in XML
format and gets back the most current national averages. Keeping the XML as
presented to the service can help by finding errors in posted XML data.
It may even be useful in searching for common errors in the XML data
presented.
Thanks for your insight.
ljh
"Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <perseus.us...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:xn0emyez...@news.microsoft.com...
ljh
> ljh wrote:
>
>> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed
>> application to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which
>> has no dependencies?
>
> If you already know the answer, why ask the question?
Perhaps I am missing something.
>
> Furthermore, MS doesn't include the JET engine anymore in the MDAC
> installations (if I'm not mistaken), something to consider in your
> decision. (which means effectively, that they want to keep people from
> using .mdb files as a database for an application which isn't build in
> MS Access, as the JET engine is only distributed with Office today (if
> I'm not mistaken).
Good to know. Thanks.
Sahil Malik [MVP C#]
Re: the jet engine etc. - yeah but most machines have it.
- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com
http://blah.winsmarts.com
"Miha Markic [MVP C#]" <miha at rthand com> wrote in message
news:e8IRFZWh...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Robert Simpson
really be doing something wrong if nobody knows about it. Maybe I need to
hire a PR guy :)
The SQLite ADO.NET 2.0 provider's VS2005 integration is pretty good (and
better than most other 3rd party databases that integrate into VS2005 -- and
the only one I know of outside MS that lets you design for the Compact
Framework), but its still incomplete. I am working on implementing all the
editors to enable you to actually design tables, indexes, keys, views etc.
Here's a movie I did demo'ing the VS2005 design-time support in the 2.0
provider for SQLite. It's based on a much older version of the program, so
isn't quite as fancy as it is now:
http://sqlite.phxsoftware.com/sqlite.wmv
And do yourself a favor -- hit the main website and read the forums! I have
lots of how-to's, and have a pretty good track record for answering
questions there :)
Robert Simpson
Programmer at Large
"ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
Miha Markic [MVP C#]
> pig anecdote?
"Bill, it took me a while to realize this, but I think you're wrestling with
a pig. He is enjoying it, and you're getting dirty. "
> Re: the jet engine etc. - yeah but most machines have it.
It is enough if one (target) machine might be missing jet. :-)
ljh
never will accomplish myself.
My problem is one of time constraints. I am not a DBA, don't want to be
one. I have to look after 15 small business networks and am embarking on
writing 3 applications and volunteering some time at a local center for
mentally challenged adults. Thats a lot of juggling to do every day.
The ease in which you can add a table in SQL\e (i.e. right click the db and
select Add Table - name it and start doing almost the same thing with the
columns) lends itself more to RAD development (and the juggling that I have
to do) than having to type in the create statements for each table.
I know it sounds minor, but for me it isn't. 2 of the 3 apps have no clear
documentation. Primarily becasue the client wants to develop something "as
we go along". So, (in this particular level of programming hell) the more
RAD the better.
I just like the idea of right click and add. It enables my bad coding
practices....but it keeps the clients happy - esp during prototyping.
Does that make designing an app while you code it a good example to follow?
Certainly not! It is atrocious. But, it is my task for one of my larger
clients.
The small size of SQLite is amazing. And the ease of deployment is a dream
come true.
I'll keep playing with it and see what I can come up with......
Thanks for all of your hard work!
ljh
"Robert Simpson" <rmsi...@noemail.noemail> wrote in message
news:%23baNYXY...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Frank Rizzo
> Frank,
> Can you point to something that documents your assertion that SQL Express
> does not run on XP Home? Runs fine on my XP Home test machine....Haven't
> been able to test access across a network to SQL/e on XP Home.
Steve,
I stand corrected. I just looked at the requirements page:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/express/sysreqs.mspx
and they just mention windows xp. The page must have changed, because
other people complained about it. Here is an article from database
journal when SQL Express came out says winxp pro.
http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/3492296
I guess they changed it.
Sahil Malik [MVP C#]
SM
"Miha Markic [MVP C#]" <miha at rthand com> wrote in message
news:%23RLqaaY...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
r norman
<contactme...@nospam.com> wrote:
>"Miha Markic [MVP C#]" <miha at rthand com> wrote in message
>news:%23RLqaaY...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactme...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:%239j92sX...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Re: the jet engine etc. - yeah but most machines have it.
>>
>> It is enough if one (target) machine might be missing jet. :-)
>>
>Especially if that one machine is the CEO's laptop.
Microsoft used to have an older Access jet engine available for
download. My impression is that they stopped when they incorporated
it into most operating systems. Do you know of any specific
platforms that do not have it?
Sahil Malik [MVP C#]
SM
"ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
news:0Gzfg.55167$QU3....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
Paul Clement
<perseus.us...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
¤ Furthermore, MS doesn't include the JET engine anymore in the MDAC
¤ installations (if I'm not mistaken), something to consider in your
¤ decision. (which means effectively, that they want to keep people from
¤ using .mdb files as a database for an application which isn't build in
¤ MS Access, as the JET engine is only distributed with Office today (if
¤ I'm not mistaken).
Actually you are. ;-)
It's installed with the latest versions of the Windows operating systems.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Frans Bouma [C# MVP]
:) I didn't know for sure so I *fortunately* added a disclaimer ;).
THough I do know that it's not included in MDAC anymore. Do you happen
to know if the JET engine installed is 3.5 or 4.0? Because if it's 3.5,
there might be problems with .mdb's which require 4.0, as MDAC doesn't
include the engine.
Cor Ligthert [MVP]
From this page
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnmdac/html/data_mdacinstall.asp
On Windows XP, the Jet components that are included with MDAC 2.5 SP2 are
preinstalled with the OS. For a complete list of the files (and their
versions) that are included with each MDAC release, see Data Access and
Storage Developer Center MDAC Downloads.
Cor
"Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <perseus.us...@xs4all.nl> schreef in bericht
news:xn0emzwe...@news.microsoft.com...
steve
We had just about decided to use SQL Express for our next project when I saw
your post. Since we need to support XP Home and Pro, I was a bit concerned
and just wanted to make sure we were making the right choice.
Steve
"Frank Rizzo" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:OhHD3Nah...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Paul Clement
¤ Paul Clement wrote:
¤
¤ > On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 01:09:26 -0700, "Frans Bouma [C# MVP]"
¤ > <perseus.us...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
¤ >
¤ > ¤ Furthermore, MS doesn't include the JET engine anymore in the MDAC
¤ > ¤ installations (if I'm not mistaken), something to consider in your
¤ > ¤ decision. (which means effectively, that they want to keep people
¤ > from ¤ using .mdb files as a database for an application which isn't
¤ > build in ¤ MS Access, as the JET engine is only distributed with
¤ > Office today (if ¤ I'm not mistaken).
¤ >
¤ > Actually you are. ;-)
¤ >
¤ > It's installed with the latest versions of the Windows operating
¤ > systems.
¤
¤ :) I didn't know for sure so I *fortunately* added a disclaimer ;).
¤ THough I do know that it's not included in MDAC anymore. Do you happen
¤ to know if the JET engine installed is 3.5 or 4.0? Because if it's 3.5,
¤ there might be problems with .mdb's which require 4.0, as MDAC doesn't
¤ include the engine.
It's version 4.0. Jet hasn't been included with MDAC for a while. They're somewhat independent of
one another. You don't necessarily need MDAC for Jet and vice versa. You only need MDAC for Jet if
you use ADO and OLEDB when working with an Access database.
William (Bill) Vaughn
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/express/sysreqs.mspx
--
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________
"steve" <noemail> wrote in message
news:%23bES2El...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
ljh
I remembered this discussion when I read yesterday that Borland is getting
out of the IDE business altogether. Chief Borland evangelist David
Intersomine announced the company's plans to spin off the IDE product line
way back in February on his blog at
http://blogs.borland.com/davidi/archive/2006/02/08/23013.aspx.
In the blog, David seems to indicate that Borland is simply starting a new
company for this line of Borland's products, but the magazine PC Plus (issue
242) says that Borland has been shopping for a buyer for the IDE business
lines since February and that tension is mounting as core people leave the
company because of Borland's lack of commitment to its developer tools
products.
I don't really see how it could have played out any differently. IMHO, most
people that choose to go .Net will not keep thier old language while doing
so. I mean, what's the point? Just make the move and be done with it.
Well, just thought you'd like to know....
"ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
news:_M4fg.66488$MM6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> You're right..... I got Sybase and Borland mixed up. Must've been that
> whole JBuilder collaboration thing that threw me.
>
> They are definitely not the same company.
>
> "Frank Rizzo" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:%23rBSlsD...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> ljh wrote:
>>> I can't find anything on SQL Anywhere - even on the Sybase site.
>>>
>>> The closest I can get is a SQL Anywhere link that actually shows you
>>> something called "Remoteware" (whatever the hell that is) -
>>> http://www.sybase.com/products/mobilesolutions/sqlanywhere .
>>
>> Yeah, they change product names every 5 minutes, which is why they'll
>> never amount to anything. However, I used the product a couple of years
>> ago and it is solid. It has all the drivers and easy of use and
>> surprising performance and all that.
>>
>>> I don't really trust Borland anyway. They jumped right in line with the
>> I don't think Sybase has anything to do with Borland. You got your
>> vendors confused.
>>
>>
>>> whole .Net mantra - when they had a better way of doing things and they
>>> have abandoned Kylix without ever admitting to doing so.
>>>
>>> They do enough to keep the Borland name alive....but that seems to be
>>> about it.
>>>
>>> "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactme...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uARMMlCh...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> Short incomplete list of reasons -
>>>>
>>>> - SQL Express (or SQL Server in general) will scale better to multiple
>>>> users.
>>>> - It will give you a "way out" when your DB exceeds 4GB
>>>> - It will be easier to maintain from a DBA point of view (centralized
>>>> backups *.*)
>>>> - It will give you a much richer feature set - notification, SQLCLR,
>>>> better T-SQL*.*
>>>> - It will give you better performance (No OleDb necessary)
>>>> - You won't have to compact it as often
>>>> - Better support for data types/indexes etc. etc.
>>>> - Other reasons.
>>>>
>>>> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And
>>>> frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these
>>>> name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> - Sahil Malik
>>>> http://www.winsmarts.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
>>>> news:kP1fg.66184$MM6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
b...@datasync.com
The best reason for guys like me: I ALREADY KNOW HOW TO USE ACCESS!!!
I've just obtained vb.net express and I'm having enough trouble
learning how to use it (and un-learning VB6). Right now, I don't want
to climb another mountain while I'm climbing this one.
Sahil Malik [MVP C#] wrote:
Sahil Malik [MVP C#]
the concept of climbing mountains and investing in a helicopter. :)
- Sahil Malik [MVP]
http://blah.winsmarts.com
<b...@datasync.com> wrote in message
news:1149739454.7...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
dbah...@hotmail.com
spit on anyone that reccomends it or uses it anywhere for anything.
not for a single record and a single user; mdb isn't scalable enough.
i mean; if it comes down to excel or mdb; mdb any day of the week.
if it comes to a piece of shit unreliable db vs the worlds most popular
enterprise RDB?
SQL Server any day of the week.
-Aaron
Miro
An mdb file lets you supply a password - so you can only allow your
application from accessing / viewing the data.
Can you do this with SQL Express / Light / ... other ?
I am starting to get the feeling you cannot lock down the db with SQL
Express as you can a normal mdb?
Thank you
Miro
"ljh" <So...@where.else> wrote in message
news:kP1fg.66184$MM6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Sahil Malik [MVP C#]
- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com
"Miro" <miro...@golden.net> wrote in message
news:%23lRxLy8...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Bob
Excellent idea! I wrestled for a long time with trying to use Access
and when the match was over, I realized that getting Access to work
under "OleDb" was as hard or harder than just learning SQL!! I am now
riding the helicopter and -- you absolutely won't believe this -- had a
bad dream last night that I WAS in a helicopter and just barely
avoiding crashing into trees, buildings, and power lines.
btw, I arrived at your web site along the way in my Access/Sql travels,
and found your code about creating databases and tables in SQL using
VB.NET very helpful. Thanks so much.
Bob
After writing my last reply to your message, I still can't believe that
I had the helicopter dream last night. I rode in a helicopter once in
my life, and that was about 30 years ago. I have NEVER (that I can
remember) ever had a helicopter dream -- until last night. I haven't
checked the time of your message, but I suspect that my dream must have
occurred after you wrote me your message. I really wonder if there is
some "medium" out there that carries brain waves around, or something,
whereby my subconcious received some glint of your thought before I
actually read it. WOW!
btw, what does "MSFT" stand for?
Thanks,
Daniel Billingsley
"Bob" <b...@datasync.com> wrote in message
news:1150291103.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Sahil Malik [MVP C#]
I just got back from TechED, and yes, you do need a helicopter, and don't
worry, we are all barely avoiding trees/buildings/power lines :)
I am glad you found the code helpful.
--
- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com
"Bob" <b...@datasync.com> wrote in message
news:1150289890.9...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sahil Malik [MVP C#]
world, Neo. ;-)
- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com
"Bob" <b...@datasync.com> wrote in message
news:1150291103.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
bradwis...@hotmail.com
Are there any comparisons/tests for concurrent usage that show SQLite
to behave better than Access? I haven't looked at Access as a database
for a web app since the ASP classic days, and I like what SQLite has to
offer, but want to be sure I won't end up with the same problems that
Access is notorious for. One thing that Access has in its favor is that
the DB can be copied to a client's PC and you can be sure they can
check out the contents with Office.
Peter wrote:
> If you really are looking for a lightweight, fast, no - deployment database
> then why not look into SQLite? There's an ADO.NET and an ADO.NET 2.0 provider
> (thanks to Robert Simpson) and it screams compared to MS Access. Not even an
> MDAC dependency.
> Peter
>
> --
> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
> UnBlog:
> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Robert Simpson
news:1150897858.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Are there any comparisons/tests for concurrent usage that show SQLite
> to behave better than Access? I haven't looked at Access as a database
> for a web app since the ASP classic days, and I like what SQLite has to
> offer, but want to be sure I won't end up with the same problems that
> Access is notorious for. One thing that Access has in its favor is that
> the DB can be copied to a client's PC and you can be sure they can
> check out the contents with Office.
There are an equally large number of people that consider that "feature" a
showstopper and a nightmare :)
I have a few SQLite vs. Access/Firebird/Vista/Sql Express benchmarks here:
http://sqlite.phxsoftware.com/forums/622/ShowPost.aspx
As for the rest ... you'll find a features overview (as it pertains to the
ADO.NET 2.0 provider) at the main site:
http://sqlite.phxsoftware.com
Robert