Database Solution

[acss]

Need to design a database which will be used for a large corporation and not
sure if Access would be best solution.There is a real need for visabilty from
other locations outside the states so a web interface would let other users
access the DB. Can someone provide insight as to limitations of Access to
determine if it would be the best solution?

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

Access would probably not be a good choice. I suggest SQL-Server Express for
a limited number of users, or the full SQL-Server for unlimited users. While
Access (actually JET) works fine for a smallish number of users on the web,
it cannot take heavy web pressure. I have had a website where 8 users
requesting complex reports could bring it down in less than 20 minutes, and
another site where we got 5000 hits in a day, but they were interspersed
through a 12 hour period and had no complex processing.

You might build the database using Access/JET and deploy it, making sure
that you have plenty of good backups. If you have no problems, you are ahead
because of the ease of building it. If you do have problems, you can upsize
it to SQL-Server very quickly, if not too complex. I have rebuilt a
SQL-Server database totally manually, from an Access database, in less than
8 hours.

 

[Evan Camilleri]

I would not use Access for this! Use ASP.NET front end and SQL server
back-end!

 

[acss]

Excellent suggestions from both you and Evan and certainly appreciate the
professional direction. Just one question in regards to SQL-server express
and or ASPNet and that is in regards to time required to learn and deploy? I
suspect that i will need the IT department for server assistance since i am
not knowledgable in this area.

Thank you

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

SQL Server should be your default database.
if you don't know how to use it-- you should drop everything and get
up to speed.

Jet just doesn't cut it for nearly _ANY_ corporate development.

-Aaron

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

ASP.NET has a formidable learning curve, and I'd suggest that you hire a
professional if you don't want to spend the next year or so learning it.

SQL-Server, is not that difficult to learn but tweaking and administration
is a professional task. The most important part of database design, other
than a knowledge of relational database principles, which is common to all
databases, is getting the business requirements converted to a computer
program. Most developers, especially non-exclusive database developers are
very poor at that. The best folks in that area are usually experienced
database architects who work closely with experienced workers.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access
http://www.accessmvp.com

 

[Evan Camilleri]

Yes I assume there is a learning curve for both. i do not know what project
it is and or your budjets but it all depens on your requirements as well.

If you need more help contact me - where are you located?


--
Evan Camilleri
http://www.HolisticRD.com
http://www.DotNetMushroom.com
http://www.MobileSaleman.com

 

[So Sorry For Poor Aaron]

Poor, poor, pitiful aaron. He passes by an opportunity to validly recommend
his own personal-favorite database, which likely is the best answer for _the
database application as described by the original poster_, but chooses to
make a fool of himself in public once again by: (1) recommending a heavy-duty
server database as the default for an Access user which is not a good idea at
all (just how would that 'average user' go about doing that, poor, poor,
pitiful aaron?) and (2) then ignoring the fact that many "corporate
developments" are small, even single-user, database applications for which
Jet is eminently well suited.

Poor, poor, pitiful aaron -- made a fool of himself in public ONE MORE TIME.

So Sorry for Poor Aaron

PS. But we'd feell sorry for anybody so biased as to feel compelled to make
himself look stupid, time after time, right in front of the Access users all
over the world who participate here, and never learn his lesson.

SSFPA

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

SQL Server is merely an optional component on the officeCd.

If your IT department won't give you an optional component on the
Office CD-- then you should complain to their boss. Most bosses would
_LOVE_ to have a junior-sized database developer _EVOLVE_ into a entry
level SQL Server engineer-- for no cost.

More importantly-- if you call yourself a database person-- and you
don't know SQL Server-- then you need to go out and get a real career.

Download the installer for SQL Server 2000 (aka MSDE 2.0) or SQL
Server 2005 Express.
and it's plug and play, dude.

-Aaron

 

[So Sorry For Poor Aaron]

If your IT department won't give you an optional
component on the Office CD-- then you should
complain to their boss.

<IRONY-SARCASM> And that'll assure you prompt and accurate support from IT
in the future . You will always be first in line behind everything and
everybody, even the contract lawn guy who wields the edger, from now on.

Most bosses would _LOVE_ to have a junior-sized
database developer _EVOLVE_ into a entry
level SQL Server engineer-- for no cost.

Just shows aaron hasn't spent much time in the real corporate world... what
he describes might be true in a small organization, where management would be
happy to get someone barely-competent on the cheap. Even so, management in a
small organization may have important job tasks that need doing, and aren't
at all related to database work, and wouldn't want the person wasting time on
something not in his/her job description.

More importantly-- if you call yourself a database
person-- and you don't know SQL Server-- then
you need to go out and get a real career.

Narrow view, aaron. Many of the best database people in the world know just
enough about SQL Server to see that it's not a fit for their environment...
too big and too much trouble to replace the lower-end Sybase products, not
strong/big enough to replace the upper-end Oracle products. But, most SQL
Server DBAs aren't fit to tie their shoelaces when it comes to DB2, Informix,
Oracle, or any one of several other databases that their employer adopted as
the corporate standard.

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

Fit to tie the shoelaces.. good stuff.

You see.. I don't think that wasting a bunch of time-- getting perfmon
metrics in linux-- makes anyone a 'better dba' than doing the same
thing with MS SQL Server and PerfMon.
with SQL Server, I can build a full fledged reporting app in about 2
hours.. keeping track of perfmon metrics.

there isn't another database in the world that makes it easier.

Db2, Informix.. I just think that it's funny that you talk about those
databases.. as anything other than dinosaurs.
Have you ever been to www.tpc.org?

SQL Server has been mopping up the competition for the past decade!!!
And I just think that it's funny.. you say that I haven't spend much
time in the real corporate world.. I mean _WOW_.

Do you _ALWAYS_ try to attack people just because they have a
different opinion?

Funny you should say that, I've got more experience than anyone else
in this channel.

EASILY.

And it's so funny that you sit there and say that SQL Server doesn't
fit in most corporate environments.
Have you never read the news at www.microsoft.com/sql that SQL Server
is the most widely used Enterprise Level database?

I am not saying than a decent Access developer turns into a decent SQL
Developer overnight. But if you had to quantify-- a level 6 Access
person (anyone that doesn't know ADP is stuck below level 7 on a scale
of 1 to 10) -- can dive into ADP and be a level 4 SQL Server developer
with minimal effort.

And it's easy to grow up from there --
but if you stick with Access / JET then you have a 'glass ceiling'.

I've been making $100 grand a year for most of the past 5-6 years.

Honestly.

And a lot of the stuff I do is 'just Access'. Of course, I'm also
RATHER damn well rounded in the SQL Server world-- because I've been
doing it every day for a decade.. and I've got much deeper SSAS, SSRS,
DTS experience than most other SQL Developers.

And I can develop a form-driven business application.. 'just as quick
as a JET kid but it runs on SQL Server'. and SQL Server _ALWAYS_ is
more reliable and better performing.
Guaranteeed.

I'm just saying that with a month of a couple of extra hours per
week-- most competetent Access people can become competetent SQL
people-- with just a little bit of effort.

That bridge is called 'Access Data Projects'-- it's fun and easy to
upsize your database to SQL Server and things just work-- much better.