Fatboy, to run one 550MB database, even if it grows like Topsy, you do NOT need SQL Enterprise; buy standard with 10 CALs (approx. £1,190 ex VAT) and then buy your additional CALs. The only reason to buy Enterprise is because of the clustering/data warehousing features, which you're not going to be using.
It may be worth some spending some time looking at MySQL www.mysql.org
It is possible to link Access to a MySQL database using ODBC drivers. It may take some effort but it should be possible to migrate your database to MySQL and still use Access as a front-end and then you could spend the £6000 on more useful things like the office christmas party!
Porting it to MySQL would be silly really. The cost of having a large busy MySQL database is imense, PostgreSQL is a much much much better open source one. (MySQL is buggy, and the 'beginers' SQL, it eats memory cpu and money for support because of stupid bugs.. its only *just* got stored procedures ffs!)
On the MS from, check out Express, if one database isn't going to go above 4gig, its right up your street, any code you make with it, can use the express engine for free(assuming you have windows for it to run it on !)
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/sql/default.aspx
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Well these forums run off MySQL and so do thousands of other websites so it can't be that bad.
for a basic database ( for the back end of a forum for example ) then MySQL is fine.
I dont think its up to more intensive tasks as being a back end for business apps. ( where you might want to use more complex things , such as data warehouseing or other analysis service for example )
Access isn't the neatest front end though.
my Virtualisation Blog http://jfvi.co.uk Virtualisation Podcast http://vsoup.net
You also have to take into account that the original poster isn't writing this application themselves.
Off all of the commercial applications I've delt with, I've not come accross one that will run on a MySQL back-end (apart from this BB app. ) MSSQL is that much more widly supported that more devs will make use for it in Wintel applications.
I'm not saying MSSQL is better than sliced bread , because it's not - there are many other high end RDMS systems that blow MSSQL out of the water , but they cost a lot more
my Virtualisation Blog http://jfvi.co.uk Virtualisation Podcast http://vsoup.net
6 million jews were killed during the holocaust, if you don't judge things on their moral values, instead of the 'thousands of people do it' traversties happenOriginally Posted by njm106
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Although I agree that Postgres is a better choice than mysql, to suggest that MySQL "eats memory CPU" because of stupid bugs is simply not true. My company has written very complex web sites and applications built on top of MySQL that have served hundreds of thousands of users daily and it has never missed a beat.
Regarding stored procedures, on the whole they are a bad idea. They tie you into the RDBMS in hand, and pollute your software architecture.
"All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks
sorry that should of been MySQL eats memory and CPU, comparied to other databases (like postgre, compare em side by side, as soon as u do something complex, postgre becomes much faster, taking less memory, and CPU time).
Its not the bugs that course that. They course major head aches. Esp with the newer features that are been introduced.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
On the whole SP are bad ideas?.... Not sure i'd agree with that. Stored procedures allow definite advantages, of tying functionality to limited processes, improving the performance of large and difficult queries.
It allows Business logic from software allowing changes to be made on the database without requiring a recomplication of code.
I'd consider direct SQL in code to be a bad thing and more polluting that calls to SP.
TiG
-- Hexus Meets Rock! --
Spanning Business Logic across two distinct layers within the application is, IMHO, an exceptionally bad idea. The only reason I would ever consider SPs is for performance reasons.
"All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks
from my POV - ( DBA not Developer ) I like SP's for running all my maintenance scripts etc.
my Virtualisation Blog http://jfvi.co.uk Virtualisation Podcast http://vsoup.net
Maintenance scripts are a perfect application for Stored Procedures, I totally agree.
The notion of having business logic, editable by people who are not developers and not based around any sort of source code control system, embedded in the database gives me the heeby jeebies tbh.
Last edited by DaBeeeenster; 15-08-2005 at 01:45 PM.
"All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks
I think we are looking at some form of source code control for our DB schema / sp's , as it would add version controll and a considerably nicer query analyser , but I've not seen it yet.
as a relative n00b to T-SQL I'm struggling a little with my formatting
my Virtualisation Blog http://jfvi.co.uk Virtualisation Podcast http://vsoup.net
Depends what the system is I agree, but i tend to work in database centric systems where the business logic for all of the multiple applications should be handled at the same level (i.e the DB)
Knowing and understanding when to chose different designs is part of an experienced design process...
TiG
-- Hexus Meets Rock! --
Personally I'd rather write a layer on top of the database that can service requests from more than 1 application.
"All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote