Borland database (Paradox) NO GOOD!
Tommy Ovesen
Currently I'm working on a project involving a ms-access database
with 25 tables. Everything worked fine using ODBC from Delphi. But
after hearing a lot of complaints about problems with speed etc.
I decided to export my database to paradox. So I did. Well now I get
all sorts of trouble:
1. Paradox tablenames can ONLY be 8 characters long!! Too bad. I had to
change all my table names in the database as well as in my code.
2. Paradox databases consists of A LOT of files. Upto 10-15 per table.
_NOT_ good. Takes up twice as much HD space as my ONE access file.
3. My app. loads a lot of combos and stuff from the database prior to
starting up. This takes about 15. secs. with ODBC and Access. After
porting it to Paradox, it takes 20 secs. So much for improved speed.
4. I use mostly SQL to retrieve/search/update/insert data in my database.
This has worked fine until now. Now I get a lot of error messages from
DBE saying 'CAPABILITY NOT SUPPORTED'. Nested selects isn't supported!!
A lot of other SQL stuff isn't supported either, with no other error
message than 'capability not supported'. How do I know what's supported
and what's NOT ??
5. Then you have the database desktop program. It's a shitty program. There
is no way of viewing your database as a whole. Inserting referential
integrity rules is very messy. Maybe I haven't read the manual enough,
but after adding a new field to a table, I can in no way remove it. I had
to start all over again with the table.
So you see, I like Delphi a lot, but not it's database. I will for sure
go back to using Access/odbc, with the problems that gives me. Hope
this improves in Delphi2.0.
Anyone care to comment my views? Any suggestions about me doing/beeing
wrong?
--
Tommy Ovesen
Norway
Rune Moberg
Tommy Ovesen <tom...@fiskforsk.norut.no> wrote:
>2. Paradox databases consists of A LOT of files. Upto 10-15 per table.
> _NOT_ good. Takes up twice as much HD space as my ONE access file.
Once you get actual data into the database, the difference will become
less apparent.
I suspect that spreading the database amongst multiple files actually
help boost performance! It's easier to handle, and I believe the server OS
will get more of the load expanding these files, instead of the Access
solution where the client machine probably spend quite much local CPU
(and network traffic) expanding that huge .MDB. Just a thought...
I also believe that Access is far more unstable. Probably due to the
reasons stated above. Mess up one table, and you end up messing up
the whole database...
>3. My app. loads a lot of combos and stuff from the database prior to
> starting up. This takes about 15. secs. with ODBC and Access. After
> porting it to Paradox, it takes 20 secs. So much for improved speed.
Paradox have slower SQL performance I guess.
>4. I use mostly SQL to retrieve/search/update/insert data in my database.
> This has worked fine until now. Now I get a lot of error messages from
> DBE saying 'CAPABILITY NOT SUPPORTED'. Nested selects isn't supported!!
Hmm... Post one of those SQL statements, and I'm sure this group
(followup to .databases) can help.
My belief is that if you can avoid SQL with Paradox, do so. There
is a performance benefit down the road.
>5. Then you have the database desktop program. It's a shitty program. There
DBD is quite good, atleast when compared to Access.
Try entering a table definition in Access, for me that was constant
juggling between the keyboard and the mouse, not so in DBD!
>go back to using Access/odbc, with the problems that gives me. Hope
>this improves in Delphi2.0.
ODBC 3 might offer better ODBC drivers, but redistribution of the
drivers looks messy: It's freely available at MS' ftp site, but you
need Office '95 in order to install it.
(Hmm, I was probably the main advocate for changing Access -> Pdox,
wasn't I? ;-) )
--
=\
*=- R.Moberg, CD-Player Pro info @ http://www.sn.no/~mobergru/
=/
Thor Kristmundsson
access Paradox tables. Using the SQL query tool that comes with
Excel I can get table to select from but when I select one I get an
error message saying "Can't access table <tablename>". I've installed
the ODBC drivers several times and fiddled with every setting but to
no avail. Has anyone else suffered the same problems? Please
share your experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
th...@marel.is
Programmer
Marel hf. - Weighing and vision systems
Hofdabakka 9, 112 Reykjavik, Iceland
Tel +354-5638000, Fax +354-5638001
MisterMike
You have found, in my opinion, the Fatal Flaw, Achilles Heel, and Weak
Link in the Chain of Borland Delphi.
Unless you're buying the C/S version of Delphi, I believe you're
basically out of luck wrt a usable SQL implementation, and that is
against C/S databases. Absolutely nothing for the desktop.
I had hopes for Delphi 2.0, but same story here. Too damn bad. The
language looks pretty good, but I'll never use it in a production app
until the multiuser desktop database stuff is brought up to a bearable
level of usability.
Tommy Ovesen <tom...@fiskforsk.norut.no> wrote:
>I'm really dissapointed with using the native paradox database.
>Currently I'm working on a project involving a ms-access database
>with 25 tables. Everything worked fine using ODBC from Delphi. But
>after hearing a lot of complaints about problems with speed etc.
>I decided to export my database to paradox. So I did. Well now I get
>all sorts of trouble:
>1. Paradox tablenames can ONLY be 8 characters long!! Too bad. I had to
> change all my table names in the database as well as in my code.
>2. Paradox databases consists of A LOT of files. Upto 10-15 per table.
> _NOT_ good. Takes up twice as much HD space as my ONE access file.
>3. My app. loads a lot of combos and stuff from the database prior to
> starting up. This takes about 15. secs. with ODBC and Access. After
> porting it to Paradox, it takes 20 secs. So much for improved speed.
>
>4. I use mostly SQL to retrieve/search/update/insert data in my database.
> This has worked fine until now. Now I get a lot of error messages from
> DBE saying 'CAPABILITY NOT SUPPORTED'. Nested selects isn't supported!!
> A lot of other SQL stuff isn't supported either, with no other error
> message than 'capability not supported'. How do I know what's supported
> and what's NOT ??
>5. Then you have the database desktop program. It's a shitty program. There
> is no way of viewing your database as a whole. Inserting referential
> integrity rules is very messy. Maybe I haven't read the manual enough,
> but after adding a new field to a table, I can in no way remove it. I had
> to start all over again with the table.
>So you see, I like Delphi a lot, but not it's database. I will for sure
>go back to using Access/odbc, with the problems that gives me. Hope
>this improves in Delphi2.0.
>Anyone care to comment my views? Any suggestions about me doing/beeing
Eric Miles
>I'm really dissapointed with using the native paradox database.
>Currently I'm working on a project involving a ms-access database
>with 25 tables. Everything worked fine using ODBC from Delphi. But
>after hearing a lot of complaints about problems with speed etc.
>I decided to export my database to paradox. So I did. Well now I get
>all sorts of trouble:
<SNIP>
>5. Then you have the database desktop program. It's a shitty program. There
> is no way of viewing your database as a whole. Inserting referential
> integrity rules is very messy. Maybe I haven't read the manual enough,
> but after adding a new field to a table, I can in no way remove it. I had
> to start all over again with the table.
I can help you with this one because it frustrated me to death. Go
into the table in restructure mode. Then goto the field you want to
delete and press CTRL-DELETE. Presto it is gone :)
>So you see, I like Delphi a lot, but not it's database. I will for sure
>go back to using Access/odbc, with the problems that gives me. Hope
>this improves in Delphi2.0.
>Anyone care to comment my views? Any suggestions about me doing/beeing
>wrong?
>--
>Tommy Ovesen
>Norway
Eric Miles
mil...@usafe14.ramstein.af.mil
.............................................
My opinions and comments are my own and ONLY
my own and reflect in no way the Air Force's.
.............................................
Biggles
<snip>
>Tommy Ovesen <tom...@fiskforsk.norut.no> wrote:
>>I'm really dissapointed with using the native paradox database.
>>Currently I'm working on a project involving a ms-access database
>>with 25 tables. Everything worked fine using ODBC from Delphi. But
>>after hearing a lot of complaints about problems with speed etc.
>>I decided to export my database to paradox. So I did. Well now I get
>>all sorts of trouble:
>>1. Paradox tablenames can ONLY be 8 characters long!! Too bad. I had to
>> change all my table names in the database as well as in my code.
Sure is showing its age there (remember PDOX is a lot older than
Access). You should not have needed to have changed your code much
though - try and hide 'real' table names via logical names such as
aliases. Does anyone know if Paradox for Windows 95 offers long table
names?
>>2. Paradox databases consists of A LOT of files. Upto 10-15 per table.
>> _NOT_ good. Takes up twice as much HD space as my ONE access file.
Paradox generates at least two files per table which is suppposed to
add flexiblity I guess, (eg: you can use DOS to copy a table to
floppy), but I think I would prefer a single database file like
Interbase & Access uses.
>>3. My app. loads a lot of combos and stuff from the database prior to
>> starting up. This takes about 15. secs. with ODBC and Access. After
>> porting it to Paradox, it takes 20 secs. So much for improved speed.
Susprised - I have heard that ODBC & Access is slower.
>>4. I use mostly SQL to retrieve/search/update/insert data in my database.
>> This has worked fine until now. Now I get a lot of error messages from
>> DBE saying 'CAPABILITY NOT SUPPORTED'. Nested selects isn't supported!!
>> A lot of other SQL stuff isn't supported either, with no other error
>> message than 'capability not supported'. How do I know what's supported
>> and what's NOT ??
Read the manual. Appendix C, Database Application Developers Guide.
It does say what 'local SQl' supports and what it doesn't. Remember
Paradox (and AFAIK Access), are not 'native' SQl DB's, (Paradoc used
QBE).
>>5. Then you have the database desktop program. It's a shitty program. There
>> is no way of viewing your database as a whole. Inserting referential
>> integrity rules is very messy. Maybe I haven't read the manual enough,
>> but after adding a new field to a table, I can in no way remove it. I had
>> to start all over again with the table.
Yes - not being able to getting an overview of your database tables &
relations is not good thing. I am still hoping some one will release a
good app or component for doing so. Shouldn't be too hard to write in
Delphi.
I would have to agree that setting up referential integrity rules in
the BDB is a pain in the ass - give me the Access drag & drop method
anyday.
As for deleting a field from a table:
"To delete a field from a table... then press Ctrl+Del. ..."
(From the online help)
>>So you see, I like Delphi a lot, but not it's database. I will for sure
>>go back to using Access/odbc, with the problems that gives me. Hope
>>this improves in Delphi2.0.
Haven't heard of much in the way of changes to the BDB in 2.0.
I think it is up to third party developers to give better DB tools.
BTW - If there were any cheap, fast, SQL databases out there, I would
not use Paradox tables at all except for backwards compatiblity.
>>Anyone care to comment my views? Any suggestions about me doing/beeing
>>wrong?
You asked.
>>Tommy Ovesen
>>Norway
Grant,
__________________________________________________________________________
Grant Black. Geothermal Energy New Zealand Ltd.
"Carelessness and inattention alone can afford us any
remedy. For that reason I rely entirely upon them."
- "Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion", David Hume
Hans Zorn
There is one point in your note I'd like to comment upon.
'Paradox tables' is NOT Delphi's native database system, just because
Delphi does not have a database of it's own. So if you prefer Access
tables: use them!
Delphi was designed to be used with any type of database around. Paradox
is just another product (from Borland, ok) they had to support.
Paradox by itself does not support extensive SQL; the fact that you have
it within Delphi (called 'Local SQL') is an extension to the
capabilities already!
Hans Zorn
P.S. Within Database Desktop you can remove a field using ctrl-delete.
Aaron Anstis
>>>1. Paradox tablenames can ONLY be 8 characters long!! Too bad. I had to
>>> change all my table names in the database as well as in my code.
>Sure is showing its age there (remember PDOX is a lot older than
>Access). You should not have needed to have changed your code much
>though - try and hide 'real' table names via logical names such as
>aliases. Does anyone know if Paradox for Windows 95 offers long table
>names?
It sure does. However they recomend using 8 character table names if
you will continue using 16 bit database tools/appications.
>
>>>2. Paradox databases consists of A LOT of files. Upto 10-15 per table.
>>> _NOT_ good. Takes up twice as much HD space as my ONE access file.
>Paradox generates at least two files per table which is suppposed to
>add flexiblity I guess, (eg: you can use DOS to copy a table to
>floppy), but I think I would prefer a single database file like
>Interbase & Access uses.
One thing to remember is that paradox does not go along the lines of
having one Database that contains many tables, forms, queries, and all
the other stuff whereas. It uses an Alias to point at the relevant
directory on the hard disk that all you files are in. While a single
Regards
Glen
Sundial Services
[ Much bickering about Access vs. Paradox deleted ]
These are two different systems with two very different goals, aims and
philosophies, and the beauty of it all is that you don't have to feel bound to
either one. The BDE is very convenient to access using the Borland VCL but it
is no wise a part of Delphi nor irrepairably bound to it.
If you want to use an Access database in your Delphi application then you are
free to do so. You simply need the most recent ODBC drivers (available from
Microsoft for, like, $10 US), and you probably want to get a native-ODBC
component from the Internet (about $35 US, shareware) to let you dispense with
BDE entirely.
As you continue to dive into Access for bigger and bigger databases, you will
see for yourself why systems like Paradox continue to be used -- along with
Access, to be sure! -- by people like me who do this for a living.
/mr/
Sundial Services
>Path: news.primenet.com!nntp.news.primenet.com!news.texas.net!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!gatech!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!chi-news.cic.net!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!ames!waikato!status.gen.nz!usenet
>From: gr...@genzl.co.nz (Biggles)
>Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc,comp.lang.pascal.delphi.databases
>Subject: Re: Borland database (Paradox) NO GOOD!
>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 05:38:25 GMT
>Organization: Internet Company of New Zealand
>Lines: 89
>Message-ID: <4e9llf$i...@status.gen.nz>
>References: <31062F...@fiskforsk.norut.no> <4e7bg4$4...@taurus.neca.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.37.139.2
>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
>Xref: news.primenet.com comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc:22202 comp.lang.pascal.delphi.databases:9133
>mkea...@neca.com (MisterMike) wrote:
><snip>
>>Tommy Ovesen <tom...@fiskforsk.norut.no> wrote:
>>>I'm really dissapointed with using the native paradox database.
>>>Currently I'm working on a project involving a ms-access database
>>>with 25 tables. Everything worked fine using ODBC from Delphi. But
>>>after hearing a lot of complaints about problems with speed etc.
>>>I decided to export my database to paradox. So I did. Well now I get
>>>all sorts of trouble:
>>>1. Paradox tablenames can ONLY be 8 characters long!! Too bad. I had to
>>> change all my table names in the database as well as in my code.
>Sure is showing its age there (remember PDOX is a lot older than
>Access). You should not have needed to have changed your code much
>though - try and hide 'real' table names via logical names such as
>aliases. Does anyone know if Paradox for Windows 95 offers long table
>names?
>
>>>2. Paradox databases consists of A LOT of files. Upto 10-15 per table.
>>> _NOT_ good. Takes up twice as much HD space as my ONE access file.
>Paradox generates at least two files per table which is suppposed to
>add flexiblity I guess, (eg: you can use DOS to copy a table to
>floppy), but I think I would prefer a single database file like
>Interbase & Access uses.
>
Paul Schopf
>I'm really dissapointed with using the native paradox database.
>Currently I'm working on a project involving a ms-access database
>with 25 tables. Everything worked fine using ODBC from Delphi. But
>after hearing a lot of complaints about problems with speed etc.
>I decided to export my database to paradox. So I did. Well now I get
>all sorts of trouble:
[snip]
>5. Then you have the database desktop program. It's a shitty program. There
> is no way of viewing your database as a whole.
This is an interesting point, and a point for Paradox over Access.
In Access you define all the relationships at the outset. (There is
the concept of a "database as a whole".) In Paradox
the relationships are defined at the form level. I have used this
distinction many times when one form wants to have the tables
linked in one way, while a different form wants them linked in
a different way. It seems strange to have only one possible organization
for a set of tables -- or to put it differently, the relationship
between tables is a property of the Task which is being done, not
a property of the Tables themselves.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schopf sch...@gsfc.nasa.gov
Coupled Climate Dynamics Group/971
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Gerrard Thirkell
>I'm really dissapointed with using the native paradox database.
>Currently I'm working on a project involving a ms-access database
>with 25 tables. Everything worked fine using ODBC from Delphi. But
>after hearing a lot of complaints about problems with speed etc.
>I decided to export my database to paradox. So I did. Well now I get
>all sorts of trouble:
>1. Paradox tablenames can ONLY be 8 characters long!! Too bad. I had to
> change all my table names in the database as well as in my code.
>2. Paradox databases consists of A LOT of files. Upto 10-15 per table.
> _NOT_ good. Takes up twice as much HD space as my ONE access file.
>3. My app. loads a lot of combos and stuff from the database prior to
> starting up. This takes about 15. secs. with ODBC and Access. After
> porting it to Paradox, it takes 20 secs. So much for improved speed.
>
>4. I use mostly SQL to retrieve/search/update/insert data in my database.
> This has worked fine until now. Now I get a lot of error messages from
> DBE saying 'CAPABILITY NOT SUPPORTED'. Nested selects isn't supported!!
> A lot of other SQL stuff isn't supported either, with no other error
> message than 'capability not supported'. How do I know what's supported
> and what's NOT ??
>5. Then you have the database desktop program. It's a shitty program. There
> is no way of viewing your database as a whole. Inserting referential
> integrity rules is very messy. Maybe I haven't read the manual enough,
> but after adding a new field to a table, I can in no way remove it. I had
> to start all over again with the table.
>So you see, I like Delphi a lot, but not it's database. I will for sure
>go back to using Access/odbc, with the problems that gives me. Hope
>this improves in Delphi2.0.
>Anyone care to comment my views? Any suggestions about me doing/beeing
>wrong?
>--
>Tommy Ovesen
>Norway
Have you ever noticed how unreliable the ACCESS MDB's are with Windows
crashes !!!!!. Maybe Paradox tables are larger but they are more
reliable.
pr...@bix.com
>>>1. Paradox tablenames can ONLY be 8 characters long!! Too bad. I had to
>>> change all my table names in the database as well as in my code.
>Access). You should not have needed to have changed your code much
>though - try and hide 'real' table names via logical names such as
>aliases. Does anyone know if Paradox for Windows 95 offers long table
>names?
Sure, with spaces and everything, like "Bogart Administration Office".
Paul Rice
pr...@bix.com
>
>>5. Then you have the database desktop program. It's a shitty program.
>There
>> is no way of viewing your database as a whole.
>
> In Access you define all the relationships at the outset. (There is
> the concept of a "database as a whole".) In Paradox
> the relationships are defined at the form level. I have used this
> distinction many times when one form wants to have the tables
> linked in one way, while a different form wants them linked in
> a different way. It seems strange to have only one possible
>organization
> for a set of tables -- or to put it differently, the relationship
> between tables is a property of the Task which is being done, not
> a property of the Tables themselves.
>
>
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schopf sch...@gsfc.nasa.gov
> Coupled Climate Dynamics Group/971
> NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
> Greenbelt, MD 20771
I'd add that even when we find workable solutions and deliver them to
customers, over a period of years we find that there is always room for
improvements. A likely area of database design that could be improved, for
example, is giving customers additional reporting capabilities with
aggregate tables.
As well as with forms, Paradox lets you see the relationships at one time
with the Data Model Designer. I don't see where the Access default display
would be of more value in viewing all tables.
Also, an Access database usually adds steps because the user will want to
get rid of temporarily-attached items. For example, to import an ascii
file, it has to be attached before importing. Given that I want to use the
resultant Paradox table from then on, I'll need to remove the ascii file to
keep the Access database from growing unnecessarily large.
Paul Rice
Ed Young
>2. Paradox databases consists of A LOT of files. Upto 10-15 per table.
> _NOT_ good. Takes up twice as much HD space as my ONE access file.
>
I have just had the -interesting- experience of extracting precious data
from a 600MB Access Database that was corrupted beyond repair. I was
successful, but "twern't easy". One (or more) files per table would
have made my life a lot easier...
Richard Vowles
: Unless you're buying the C/S version of Delphi, I believe you're
: basically out of luck wrt a usable SQL implementation, and that is
: against C/S databases. Absolutely nothing for the desktop.
I would suggest that you read the advertising hype again. BDE32's
SQL engine has been completely re-written and now supports on Paradox
and DBASE databases a complete ANSI '92 SQL implementation. I mean,
I was using ALTER TABLE on a Paradox database just yesterday!!! You do
not need C/S Delphi to get BDE32.
--
"...I'll leave my mind beneath the mat, so you can let yourself in,
if you can stand the mess then stay, but i'm not entertaining..."
Ken Robinson
>
> Tommy Ovesen <tom...@fiskforsk.norut.no> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >5. Then you have the database desktop program. It's a shitty program. There
> > is no way of viewing your database as a whole.
>
Yeah. Riigghhht! Oh me, Oh My. I really miss the VB tool. I can't even remember what it is
called. 'Database Manager' or something like that. Talk about resembling canine fecal matter.
Try creating a database in that wonderful piece of business. Make a mistake??? No problem.
Delete everything and start all over. Can't do anything useful without a copy of Access. At
least in Delphi I can create what I want with the DBD. I don't need a copy of Paradox. I can
set up the database. I can use the QBE to define a query, then get the sql from there. Etc.,
etc.
Why am I seeing this type of crap. When I stopped using VB, which was the same week I got
Delphi, I stopped looking at VB information. I guess I must be different. It's kind of like
when I get out of a relationship that I don't want anymore, I don't go hang around in front of
her house. That is if I really do want out. Oh well, this is not alt.therapy...
Ken Robinson
The opinions expressed here ARE those of my company. I AM the company.
Arne Jensen
Thirkell) wrote:
>Tommy Ovesen <tom...@fiskforsk.norut.no> wrote:
>
>>I'm really dissapointed with using the native paradox database.
>>Currently I'm working on a project involving a ms-access database
>>with 25 tables. Everything worked fine using ODBC from Delphi. But
>>after hearing a lot of complaints about problems with speed etc.
>>I decided to export my database to paradox. So I did. Well now I get
>>all sorts of trouble:
>
>>1. Paradox tablenames can ONLY be 8 characters long!! Too bad. I had to
>> change all my table names in the database as well as in my code.
>
>>2. Paradox databases consists of A LOT of files. Upto 10-15 per table.
>> _NOT_ good. Takes up twice as much HD space as my ONE access file.
>
>>3. My app. loads a lot of combos and stuff from the database prior to
>> starting up. This takes about 15. secs. with ODBC and Access. After
>> porting it to Paradox, it takes 20 secs. So much for improved speed.
>>
>>4. I use mostly SQL to retrieve/search/update/insert data in my database.
>> This has worked fine until now. Now I get a lot of error messages from
>> DBE saying 'CAPABILITY NOT SUPPORTED'. Nested selects isn't supported!!
>> A lot of other SQL stuff isn't supported either, with no other error
>> message than 'capability not supported'. How do I know what's supported
>> and what's NOT ??
>
>>5. Then you have the database desktop program. It's a shitty program. There
>> is no way of viewing your database as a whole. Inserting referential
>> integrity rules is very messy. Maybe I haven't read the manual enough,
>> but after adding a new field to a table, I can in no way remove it. I had
>> to start all over again with the table.
>
>>So you see, I like Delphi a lot, but not it's database. I will for sure
>>go back to using Access/odbc, with the problems that gives me. Hope
>>this improves in Delphi2.0.
>
>>Anyone care to comment my views? Any suggestions about me doing/beeing
>>wrong?
>>--
>>Tommy Ovesen
>>Norway
>
>Have you ever noticed how unreliable the ACCESS MDB's are with Windows
>crashes !!!!!. Maybe Paradox tables are larger but they are more
>reliable.
>
I disagree, Pdox tables are NOT reliable!! and WHEN the cras come the
repareutility are useless!!!
So from my point of view ACCESS can't be any worse??
|--------------------------------------------------------------
| Arne Fl. Jensen uni...@inet.uni-c.dk
|--------------------------------------------------------------
| UNI-C Aarhus
| Olof Palmes alle 38 Phone: +45 86 78 44 44
| DK-8200 Aarhus N Fax: +45 86 78 44 55
|--------------------------------------------------------------
C R Fraser
>I'm really dissapointed with using the native paradox database.
>Currently I'm working on a project involving a ms-access database
>with 25 tables. Everything worked fine using ODBC from Delphi. But
>after hearing a lot of complaints about problems with speed etc.
>I decided to export my database to paradox. So I did. Well now I get
>all sorts of trouble:
>
>1. Paradox tablenames can ONLY be 8 characters long!! Too bad. I had to...
Yes that is a bit of nuisance, I have heard the next version supports long
names
>2. Paradox databases consists of A LOT of files. Upto 10-15 per table.
> _NOT_ good. Takes up twice as much HD space as my ONE access file.
> Paradox generates at least two files per table which is suppposed to
> add flexiblity I guess, (eg: you can use DOS to copy a table to
> floppy), but I think I would prefer a single database file like
> Interbase & Access uses.
It does have a lot more files but if there all in one directory there is not
much difference. I have seen a lot of debate about this, generally saying that
splitting up the db is better. Some say that you should also spit up Access
DBs (ie data/code etc)
>3. My app. loads a lot of combos and stuff from the database prior to
> starting up. This takes about 15. secs. with ODBC and Access. After
> porting it to Paradox, it takes 20 secs. So much for improved speed.
> Susprised - I have heard that ODBC & Access is slower.
I have used access and odbc and also paradox, paradox has worked faster for me,
perhaps there needs to be some more configuration or indexing??
>4. I use mostly SQL to retrieve/search/update/insert data in my database.
> This has worked fine until now. Now I get a lot of error messages from
> DBE saying 'CAPABILITY NOT SUPPORTED'. Nested selects isn't supported!!
>5. Then you have the database desktop program. It's a shitty program. There
> is no way of viewing your database as a whole. Inserting referential
> integrity rules is very messy. Maybe I haven't read the manual enough,
> but after adding a new field to a table, I can in no way remove it. I had
Well, the database desktop is only a small utility, I suppose if you want
someting better, you need to get paradox itself.
I find it useful (because I don't have paradox) but also limiting. It is also
not the most user friendly program around.
That's my $0.02 worth.
Colin
Patrick Okeeffe
Tommy Ovesen <tom...@fiskforsk.norut.no> wrote:
> I'm really dissapointed with using the native paradox database.
> Currently I'm working on a project involving a ms-access database
> with 25 tables. Everything worked fine using ODBC from Delphi. But
> after hearing a lot of complaints about problems with speed etc.
> I decided to export my database to paradox. So I did. Well now I get
> all sorts of trouble:
>
> 1. Paradox tablenames can ONLY be 8 characters long!! Too bad. I had to
> change all my table names in the database as well as in my code.
This limitation will be removed when we all upgrade to Win95/NT :-)
> 2. Paradox databases consists of A LOT of files. Upto 10-15 per table.
> _NOT_ good. Takes up twice as much HD space as my ONE access file.
I prefer lots of files over one file because if one table in a 70 meg Access
database corrupts (usually because Saggitarius is rising in Scorpio) then the
database is down for hours doing a repair and compact. At least if a Paradox
DB is corrupted you only have to fix the table and the rest of the DB is still
intact and can be used. As the DB gets bigger Paradox is more space efficient
than Access.
> 3. My app. loads a lot of combos and stuff from the database prior to
> starting up. This takes about 15. secs. with ODBC and Access. After
> porting it to Paradox, it takes 20 secs. So much for improved speed.
Make sure you have indexes and plenty of them.
> 4. I use mostly SQL to retrieve/search/update/insert data in my database.
> This has worked fine until now. Now I get a lot of error messages from
> DBE saying 'CAPABILITY NOT SUPPORTED'. Nested selects isn't supported!!
> A lot of other SQL stuff isn't supported either, with no other error
> message than 'capability not supported'. How do I know what's supported
> and what's NOT ??
Paradox is designed for high transaction thruput and speed for *table*
operations. The overhead for table operations is very much lower than that of
query operations. My advice is to use TTable wherever possible. Paradox and
Access need slightly different approaches to getting the best out of them.
> 5. Then you have the database desktop program. It's a shitty program. There
> is no way of viewing your database as a whole. Inserting referential
> integrity rules is very messy. Maybe I haven't read the manual enough,
> but after adding a new field to a table, I can in no way remove it. I had
> to start all over again with the table.
If you need the cpability to do this buy Paradox.
> So you see, I like Delphi a lot, but not it's database. I will for sure
> go back to using Access/odbc, with the problems that gives me. Hope
> this improves in Delphi2.0.
> Anyone care to comment my views? Any suggestions about me doing/beeing
> wrong?
We wrote a Point of Sale system in VB/Access and had nothing but problems.
With it everything we did was a workaround for something else that was a
workaround that created another problem.....etc. We came to the conclusion
that Access was not designed for high thruput situations and when Delphi came
along we found (with a large amount of redesign - that has paid off in spades
BTW) Paradox was ideal.
Patrick Okeeffe
--
********************************************************************************
My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my employer Petroleum
Systems Pty Ltd.
poke...@ozramp.net.au
********************************************************************************
Matthew Vincent
To delete a field from database desktop, hit CTRL-DELETE. This was found after much searching through the help file.
M@!
MisterMike
> This is an interesting point, and a point for Paradox over Access.
> In Access you define all the relationships at the outset. (There is
> the concept of a "database as a whole".) In Paradox
> the relationships are defined at the form level. I have used this
> distinction many times when one form wants to have the tables
> linked in one way, while a different form wants them linked in
> a different way. It seems strange to have only one possible organization
> for a set of tables -- or to put it differently, the relationship
> between tables is a property of the Task which is being done, not
> a property of the Tables themselves.
In Access, you can still link data on whatever fields you like (as
long as they're like fields, e.g. Long against Long etc.).
IAC, having standard relationships global to your database is just
good database design.
- Mike
John W
>I'm really dissapointed with using the native paradox database.
>Currently I'm working on a project involving a ms-access database
>with 25 tables. Everything worked fine using ODBC from Delphi. But
>after hearing a lot of complaints about problems with speed etc.
>I decided to export my database to paradox. So I did. Well now I get
>all sorts of trouble:
>1. Paradox tablenames can ONLY be 8 characters long!! Too bad. I had to
> change all my table names in the database as well as in my code.
This is a DOS limitation, not a Paradox limitation. It is fixed in
Paradox 7 and Delphi 2 both of which work under Win95.
>2. Paradox databases consists of A LOT of files. Upto 10-15 per table.
> _NOT_ good. Takes up twice as much HD space as my ONE access file.
Yep, but the splitting of files is good database practise. The most
dangerous part of Access's MDB format is the "gee, let's store
everything in one file", which is an invitation to complete disaster
should the inevitable occur and file corruption happen. There is a
reason why only 2 database managers support this stupid schema -- it
is DANGEROUS. (And I've had Access files blow up on me, robust Access
is not). Also, check your indexing. Do you need all these indexes?
Are you going to query on them or display them index order? If not,
ditch them.
>3. My app. loads a lot of combos and stuff from the database prior to
> starting up. This takes about 15. secs. with ODBC and Access. After
> porting it to Paradox, it takes 20 secs. So much for improved speed.
>
Please explain "combos". My own experience with Access is that load
time is painfully slow in comparison to either Delphi or Paradox.
>4. I use mostly SQL to retrieve/search/update/insert data in my database.
> This has worked fine until now. Now I get a lot of error messages from
> DBE saying 'CAPABILITY NOT SUPPORTED'. Nested selects isn't supported!!
> A lot of other SQL stuff isn't supported either, with no other error
> message than 'capability not supported'. How do I know what's supported
> and what's NOT ??
Read the Local SQL part of the Database Developers Guide, as poor as
it is.
Personally, I wish that Borland had included the Paradox QBE engine
with Delphi. It is far more flexible and far more powerful than Local
SQL.
Still, I'm told a lot of these problems (except nested selects, which
aren't part of any standard I've seen [I could be wrong!] and which
could violate any number of the 12 rules of relational databases) are
solved in the abovementioned 32 bit programs.
>5. Then you have the database desktop program. It's a shitty program. There
> is no way of viewing your database as a whole. Inserting referential
> integrity rules is very messy. Maybe I haven't read the manual enough,
> but after adding a new field to a table, I can in no way remove it. I had
> to start all over again with the table.
In regard to removing a column from a table try restructuring, then in
the DBox highlight the offending field, press CTRL-DEL and bam! its
gone.
As to setting RI rules, I guess it is what one is used to. I dislike
Access's way because it assumes I'm an idiot and it will make my
choices for me. Still, both Paradox and Access are lightyears ahead
of xBase.
>So you see, I like Delphi a lot, but not it's database. I will for sure
>go back to using Access/odbc, with the problems that gives me. Hope
>this improves in Delphi2.0.
>Anyone care to comment my views? Any suggestions about me doing/beeing
>wrong?
>--
>Tommy Ovesen
>Norway
John W
>Tommy Ovesen <tom...@fiskforsk.norut.no> wrote:
>>2. Paradox databases consists of A LOT of files. Upto 10-15 per table.
>> _NOT_ good. Takes up twice as much HD space as my ONE access file.
>>
>I have just had the -interesting- experience of extracting precious data
>from a 600MB Access Database that was corrupted beyond repair. I was
>successful, but "twern't easy". One (or more) files per table would
>have made my life a lot easier...
Gee, someone else has had this experience with so-called bullet proof
Access? It reminded me of my days fighting with R-Base back in the
DOS Age.
Bashed Access files are a REAL pain and the MS repair utility is even
worse, IMHO.
ttfn
John
John W
>>
>>Have you ever noticed how unreliable the ACCESS MDB's are with Windows
>>crashes !!!!!. Maybe Paradox tables are larger but they are more
>>reliable.
>>
>I disagree, Pdox tables are NOT reliable!! and WHEN the cras come the
>repareutility are useless!!!
>So from my point of view ACCESS can't be any worse??
Hmm, I've seen Pdox tables recover quite nicely when Windows crashes,
locally, on a couple of peer-to-peer networks and in Novell
enviornments. The only repeated problems I've had are with
WinForWorkgroups until I changed the network to something a tad more
robust.
ttfn
John
Matthew Vincent
I'm sorry, but if you have a 600mb access file, and windows crashes, you have
the chance of loosing _ALL_ the contents of that file. With Paradox tables, at
most you would only loose the table which is currently being written or what
ever. I have spent hours trying to get access to recover after a crash, many
many repair pack cycles later, and half the data may still be corrupt. Also
Access databases aren't very efficient in managing space, and a pack of the
data base is often necessary.
-M@
Arne Jensen wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Jan 1996 10:08:09 GMT, gerr...@werple.net.au (Gerrard
Steven R. Zuch
>Yep, but the splitting of files is good database practise. The most
>dangerous part of Access's MDB format is the "gee, let's store
>everything in one file", which is an invitation to complete disaster
>should the inevitable occur and file corruption happen. There is a
>reason why only 2 database managers support this stupid schema -- it
>is DANGEROUS. (And I've had Access files blow up on me, robust Access
>is not).
You do not need to put all Access objects in one MDB. NOT REQUIRED.
That plain, that simple! If you want, you could put each Access table
in their own MDB.
What you gain in repair flexibility, you loose in some of the referential
features that are available when the tables are all in one MDB.
I believe that most high-end SQL systems places all the tables in one
file, since the business rules (referential integrity, triggers, etc).
are stored with the data). Gupta SQL stores all tables in one database.
Steven
Pat White
>>>>So you see, I like Delphi a lot, but not it's database. I will for sure
>>>>go back to using Access/odbc, with the problems that gives me.
Two of us are about to start a rewrite using DOS Paradox of an Access
application which took about 1 man year to develop. It performs
appallingly, and cannot be modified to add some new fields and reports -
the authors say it will need a complete rewrite. My estimate to complete
is 20 man days including the new requirements, plus 5 days to link it to
an existing application.
Pat
--
Pat White
email: p...@pwhite.demon.co.uk
Phone; 44+(0)1925 266113
Patrick Okeeffe
Steven R. Zuch <ste...@ibm.net> wrote:
> In article <4en44h$g...@aphex.direct.ca>, jwi...@Direct.CA (John W) says:
> >Yep, but the splitting of files is good database practise. The most
> >dangerous part of Access's MDB format is the "gee, let's store
> >everything in one file", which is an invitation to complete disaster
> >should the inevitable occur and file corruption happen. There is a
> >reason why only 2 database managers support this stupid schema -- it
> >is DANGEROUS. (And I've had Access files blow up on me, robust Access
> >is not).
>
> You do not need to put all Access objects in one MDB. NOT REQUIRED.
> That plain, that simple! If you want, you could put each Access table
> in their own MDB.
>
> What you gain in repair flexibility, you loose in some of the referential
> features that are available when the tables are all in one MDB.
Yeah but if you do this, what is the point of using Access. You may as well
use Paradox :-)
> I believe that most high-end SQL systems places all the tables in one
> file, since the business rules (referential integrity, triggers, etc).
> are stored with the data). Gupta SQL stores all tables in one database.
>
Most high end databases are an order of magnitude more stable than Access.
Patrick
Steven R. Zuch
>In article <4eqfcj$4j...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
>Steven R. Zuch <ste...@ibm.net> wrote:
>> You do not need to put all Access objects in one MDB. NOT REQUIRED.
>> That plain, that simple! If you want, you could put each Access table
>> in their own MDB.
>>
>> What you gain in repair flexibility, you loose in some of the
>> referential features that are available when the tables are all
>> in one MDB.
>
>Yeah but if you do this, what is the point of using Access. You may as
>well use Paradox :-)
RI can be enforced at the query and form level with attached tables.
But I prefer to enforce them at the Jet Engine level, so I leave all
the related tables in the same MDB.
Access is a great product to meet certain needs. Give me a single-user
query intensive system, I will take Access any day. And not to take
anything away from Delphi and VB, I like the nice integration of the
report writer, form designer, query designer, editor, etc...
No third party stuff necessary or desired.
What is the point of using Access - great tool for certain needs.
That simple. But, then, I am looking at Delphi, to meet other
needs, or why would I be in this newsgroup :).
Steven R. Zuch
Cogent Management Inc.
"To err is human ... To really screw things up you need a computer."
Kyle Cordes
>Ed Young <te...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Bashed Access files are a REAL pain and the MS repair utility is even
>worse, IMHO.
The best features are:
1) After you Repair, it doesn't tell you whether it found any problems.
2) Repair can leave some loose ends; to be safe, you have to repair and
Compact, adding lots of time to the whole process.
***** Kyle Cordes @ Automation Service ***** kco...@mo.net *****