Thread: Re: Microsoft access verses postgresql
Not only will you have performance and corruption issues, you'll also have problems with the lock file. And security is a pain to manage. We have replaced all of our multi-user Access databases with PostgreSQL. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoffrey [mailto:esoteric@3times25.net] > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 10:46 AM > To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org > Subject: [ADMIN] Microsoft access verses postgresql > > > I've got a client who is following my suggestion that they > replace a set > of excel spreadsheets with a database solution. They are > looking at two > proposals, postgresql solution or an Access solution. The > requirements > will include vpn connectivity from one site to another. It > appears they > will be going with the Access solution. I've got concerns regarding > this based on research I've done that seems to indicate that Access, > when used in a multi-user solution is easily corrupted. Does anyone > have any knowledge/experience with such issues? > > -- > Until later, Geoffrey esoteric@3times25.net > > Building secure systems inspite of Microsoft > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to > majordomo@postgresql.org >
I have many years experience with several database products: Foxbase,
FoxPro, MS SQL, Access, Postgresql, AS400 DB2. Compared to any of the
above Access is a toy. Case in point; in my office we have a product
which is "multi-user" based upon Access. When the users, there are
only four of them, start pumping data into the database all at once,
the product fails. We then contact the vendor then replies with a
TechNet article from M$ which explains that Access should not be used
as a multi-user database.
Also, take note many many projects start as just a simple little job
and then take on a life of their own.
Oh what about security and user management. And what about backups.
Who is going to hang around until all the users are finished to backup
the database?
Considering Postgresql is free and actually works. There is no
decision.
good luck
kd
charles.haron@cognitive.com ("Haron, Charles") wrote in message news:<593E515C9586D511BB4500010283D5E24396@COG-MAIL>...
> Not only will you have performance and corruption issues, you'll also have
> problems with the lock file. And security is a pain to manage. We have
> replaced all of our multi-user Access databases with PostgreSQL.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Geoffrey [mailto:esoteric@3times25.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 10:46 AM
> > To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
> > Subject: [ADMIN] Microsoft access verses postgresql
> >
> >
> > I've got a client who is following my suggestion that they
> > replace a set
> > of excel spreadsheets with a database solution. They are
> > looking at two
> > proposals, postgresql solution or an Access solution. The
> > requirements
> > will include vpn connectivity from one site to another. It
> > appears they
> > will be going with the Access solution. I've got concerns regarding
> > this based on research I've done that seems to indicate that Access,
> > when used in a multi-user solution is easily corrupted. Does anyone
> > have any knowledge/experience with such issues?
> >
> > --
> > Until later, Geoffrey esoteric@3times25.net
> >
> > Building secure systems inspite of Microsoft
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to
> > majordomo@postgresql.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
kbd wrote: >I have many years experience with several database products: Foxbase, >FoxPro, MS SQL, Access, Postgresql, AS400 DB2. Compared to any of the >above Access is a toy. Case in point; in my office we have a product >which is "multi-user" based upon Access. When the users, there are >only four of them, start pumping data into the database all at once, >the product fails. We then contact the vendor then replies with a >TechNet article from M$ which explains that Access should not be used >as a multi-user database. > >Also, take note many many projects start as just a simple little job >and then take on a life of their own. > >Oh what about security and user management. And what about backups. >Who is going to hang around until all the users are finished to backup >the database? > >Considering Postgresql is free and actually works. There is no >decision. > > First, sorry about my bad command in english. Ok. This is true, but there is a problem when you are developing an aplication that must be easy to install, because the person who will probably install the system is a PC user, not a Software Ingenier neither a DB Admin. In these cases, postgres, mysql, sql server, ... and other DBMS needs the interaction with an experimented person who knows who to install and configure the DBMS for dealing with the application. Often, these sceranios, the application could be monouser and selfinstallable. In these circunstances, Access could be a option. In 80s, DBase was the poormen database, since 90s is Access. I kown a lot of comercial applications, that todays uses DBase and Access database file structures. Therefore, do you know a better Open Source DBMS than Access, that is easy to install and integrate with your applications ? I mean, there is an Open Source DBMS whose features are bettween Access or DBase and Postgress/MySQL ? Thanks.
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Juan Miguel wrote: > Therefore, do you know a better Open Source DBMS than Access, that is > easy to install and integrate with your applications ? What is your target environment? We sell a commercial program (http://www.canit.ca) that uses PostgreSQL internally. For our Red Hat 8 and 9 Linux targets, installation is extremely simple; it goes something like this: ./install ./init-database I would imagine that you could fairly easily write comparable wrapper installation programs for PostgreSQL on other platforms. Regards, David.
Juan Miguel wrote: > kbd wrote: > >> I have many years experience with several database products: Foxbase, >> FoxPro, MS SQL, Access, Postgresql, AS400 DB2. Compared to any of the >> above Access is a toy. Case in point; in my office we have a product >> which is "multi-user" based upon Access. When the users, there are >> only four of them, start pumping data into the database all at once, >> the product fails. We then contact the vendor then replies with a >> TechNet article from M$ which explains that Access should not be used >> as a multi-user database. >> >> Also, take note many many projects start as just a simple little job >> and then take on a life of their own. >> >> Oh what about security and user management. And what about backups. >> Who is going to hang around until all the users are finished to backup >> the database? >> >> Considering Postgresql is free and actually works. There is no >> decision. >> >> > First, sorry about my bad command in english. Not a problem, it's better then some who use it natively.. > Ok. This is true, but there is a problem when you are developing an > aplication that must be easy to install, > because the person who will probably install the system is a PC user, > not a Software Ingenier neither a DB Admin. I understand what you are saying, but I would submit that convenience is never a substitute for data integrity. -- Until later, Geoffrey esoteric@3times25.net Building secure systems inspite of Microsoft