Re: Why not Access...?
From: Anthony Thomas (ALThomas_at_kc.rr.com)
Date: 01/26/05
- Next message: Eric: "partition capacity loss"
- Previous message: Geoff N. Hiten: "Re: Tempdb after restart"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:18:00 -0600
If the database is to be "very big," you better make those workstations
"very big" as well. Could you quantify "very big?" A DBMS is optimized
when it maintain the most frequently requested data pages in memory, thus
eliminating the need to constantly incur disk I/O. If these are to run on
the same host, you'll need quite a bit of memory or you client processes
will suffer.
Next, I DID NOT SAY Oracle was considered a "best choice," only a sufficient
server alternative. As a DBMS, Oracle has advantages in some areas, but is
inferior in others, most notably its ease of administration. Nor did I say
that PL/SQL is "superior" to T-SQL in any way. Both of these are
proprietary: T-SQL to SQL Server, which is ANSI-92 compliant but with
extentions, and PL/SQL to Oracle, which is compliant, mostly, but extended
quite a bit from standard.
The main difference is that PL/SQL is really a compiler that can read and
execute SQL but is really meant to "code" Oracle. It is more akin to SQL
Server's DMO API. T-SQL on the other hand is more a scripting language for
SQL statements.
If you are this keen on Oracle, go for it, but it would not be a wise
client-side repository.
Sincerley,
Anthony Thomas
-- "RPK" <RPK@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:AC825CFD-0113-4EE0-B552-289A8E6FB6E3@microsoft.com... It is a desktop application and the database in also on the same machine. There is no Client/Server. But, the database size can be very big and it will store highly critical data of business. I also want to know why Oracle is considered a best choice as compared to SQL Server. I also read that PL/SQL is more powerful then T-SQL. Does SQL Server 2000 supports PL/SQL? "Anthony Thomas" wrote: > What features are lacking in MSDE that exist in SE or EE of SS2K that you > need? > > Also, you need to answer the question regarding whether or not each client > will be using an individual database, and individual copy of a central > organization database, or making straight calls to a centralized > organizational database. > > As far as Oracle is concerned, that might be an alternative once we've > determined whether or not you are using a strict Client/Server app or not. > Oracle would make a lousy distributed back end solution...too resource and > administratively intensive to deploy as a workstation solution. > > Sincerely, > > > Anthony Thomas > > > -- > > "RPK" <RPK@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:D6C621DB-CF10-4DB6-8024-CBAFA87789CA@microsoft.com... > I also want to know whether Oracle is preferred by Visual Basic developers. > I > think Oracle works well with D2k, and is more resource hungry. > > My client has Win98 installed, and so SQL Server Standard Edition and > Enterprise Edition is of no use. They need Win2k/NT. > > MSDE is better then Access, but lacks many useful features of SQL Server, > which I need. > > >
- Next message: Eric: "partition capacity loss"
- Previous message: Geoff N. Hiten: "Re: Tempdb after restart"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
