SQL Server vs Access for back ends

[Stapes]

Hi

Is it better to use SQL Server for my back end database, than to use
Access?

Yours,

Stapes

 

[Rick Brandt]

Hi

Is it better to use SQL Server for my back end database, than to use
Access?

Define "better" and someone could answer the question.

If you need the security, scalability, conciurrency, 24/7 operation, and
other advantages that SQL Server provides then obviously using SQL Server
would be "better" then using an MDB file.

If you don't need those things then we still need to know more information.
For example, if your organization already has a SQL Server box set up and
has someone administering it and all you have to do is have your
tables/database added to that existing infrastructure then I think using SQL
Server would be the obvious choice.

If however; your organization would have to purchase a box, AND SQL Server,
AND set it all up, AND hire (or "volunteer") someone to adminster it, then
the decision is quite a different one.

 

[MH]

I agree, some people just don't need SQL Server.

Other information you need is number of concurrent users and estimated size
of your db.

MH

 

[John W. Vinson]

Is it better to use SQL Server for my back end database, than to use
Access?

Is it better to use an 18-wheeler semitrailer truck for hauling stuff than a
3/4 ton pickup?

It depends on the database, what you're trying to accomplish, and what your
constraints are.

John W. Vinson [MVP]

 

[Guest]

bull crap kid

SQL Server is always better; it is easier, faster, more reliable

 

[Guest]

constraints?

SQL Server has no constraints; you install it on a server.

Access MDB isn't reliable enough for real world usage

 

[Larry Linson]

Other information you need is number of
concurrent users and estimated size
of your db.

The vast, vast majority of Access client databases that I've worked on were
not converted because of size and user audience, but because of needs for
reliability and recoverability. There are some which should be converted
because of those factors, but it's not usually the driving factor.

If the database is "business critical" -- that is, the business needs it to
continue doing business, you may not be able to afford the time that it
could take to recover and bring up-to-date a Jet back-end. I did a couple
of special projects on an Access client to MS SQL Server, where there were
fewer than 25 employees in the company.

But, their business was stock options trading, and the DB was vital to
making the decisions according to their own rules, on when to sell and when
to buy -- with SQL Server, it was merely a matter of turning on logging, and
recovery would have been merely a matter of using the log files to bring the
data up-to-date from the most recent backup.

But, reliability was so good that they only had to use the recoverability in
testing to assure themselves that it did/would work.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

 

[Larry Linson]

SQL Server is always better; it is easier,
faster, more reliable

Mr. Kempf surprises me here... this variation of his one answer emphasizes
SQL Server instead of ADP. But, I will point out, just for the record, that
Access can be used as a client to any ODBC-compliant database.

Implementing the server DB itself is not easier nor faster; implemented
properly, most server DBs are, in fact, less liable to corruption. And, the
advantages of faster recovery are not always worth the additional cost if
the application is not "business critical".

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP