SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: acess ou sql?

  1. #1
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    501
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    acess ou sql?

    I suppose this is a silly question. But well... I'm a silly girl.

    I've to choose which to use. The database will have text and images. I don't know if u must know more.

    Bye.


  2. #2
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,347
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    microsoft access or microsoft sql/server?

    sql/server

    il n'y a pas de cuillère
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  3. #3
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    854
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Once the database grows in size Access will be a lot slower than SQL Server, also it is very poor at handling concurrent users.

    So you will need to estimate what size it will grow into and how many users it will have to support.

  4. #4
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    501
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    YES!

    Bu now I've another doubt....I don´t know if I used MYSQL and have to learn PHP or M. ACESS.


    I've to study the situaton.

  5. #5
    SitePoint Wizard Goof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,154
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Storing pictures will probably have something to do with your database choice also. If you go with Access, you will not want to store those files in the database itself. Rather, you'd want to save the files to the server somewhere and store the path in the database. I don't know about MySQL, but a sure way to kill Access would be storing 50kb files in the database structure.

    Goof
    Nathan Rutman
    A slightly offbeat creative.

  6. #6
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    501
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    More than 50 KB will kill the ACESS?

    I've to said that I've never work with database.

  7. #7
    Just Blow It bronze trophy
    DaveMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    Posts
    7,294
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    In general terms, it's not a good idea to store images in a database. You can do it, but I've NEVER run into a situation where it's been beneficial and I've been working with various incarnations of databases for 13 years now. It's much more efficient to store the images on your website somewhere and then store the links to the images in your database. This also allows you to search for images much easier.

    That being said, there are a few things to consider when considering whether to use Access vs SQL Server. The first is the number of concurrent users, or in other words how many people are going to be hitting your database at the EXACT same time. Access 97 can handle up to 30 concurrent user at a time, Access 2000 can handle a higher number than that. With those numbers in mind, you can figure that a site with 100 users on it at the same time will still run efficiently because they will not all hit the database at the exact same time.

    The second thing to consider is cost. You can create an Access database for no cost through straight ADO calls or SQL statements. SQL server requires the SQL server software to be installed on the server, plus there is usually a setup fee incurred for setting up the database and getting the permissions setup properly. Most hosts I've seen charge $25 for setup and almost all charge some amount for running SQL Server at all on your site.

    The third is backups. With access, all you need to do to backup the database is copy the .mdb file off the server. With SQL Server it can be a whole lot more complicated, especially if your host will not allow enterprise manager access (and some will not)

    As for MySQL, you can access MySQL from asp, perl or php without a problem assuming you use the correct connections. The problem with MySQL is there are some limitation on the SQL which are supposed to be fixed in V4, but most sites run 3.x plus the syntax is not the same so it is not as easy to convert to another system at a later date without changing your code...

    If you've got a limited amount of users right now, then use access since it's free and should meet your needs. You can always upgrade at a later date if you find it necessary.
    Dave Maxwell - Manage Your Site Team Leader
    My favorite YouTube Video! | Star Wars, Dr Suess Style
    Learn how to be ready for The Forums' Move to Discourse

  8. #8
    SitePoint Wizard Goof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,154
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by magi
    More than 50 KB will kill the ACESS?

    I've to said that I've never work with database.
    50 KB won't kill Access, but if you only wanted to store a single record, you wouldn't be using a database, now would you?

    After 10 records you have 500KB (probably still not a big deal); after 100 records you have 5 megs; if you ever reach 1000 records, you have 50 megs all in that one field of a single database. It would be much better to store these files on the server and then reference them from a simple text field in Access.

    Hope that helps,
    Goof
    Nathan Rutman
    A slightly offbeat creative.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •