[WEB4LIB] Re: Access2002 vs. SQL .. which way do we go?

[Kevil, L H.]

This link to a discussion in 15 Seconds has a good deal of pertinent information about this topic:

http://www.15seconds.com/issue/010514.htm

L. Hunter Kevil
Collection Development Librarian
176 Elmer Ellis Library
University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, MO 65201

KevilL at missouri.edu
573-884-8760 voice
573-882-6034 facsimile

"Reality is the name we give to our mistakes." - Oscar Wilde
"The Left isn't merely gauche; it's downright sinister." (Bizmark in an internet posting.)



-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Wiggins [mailto:rich at richardwiggins.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 9:20 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [WEB4LIB] Re: Access2002 vs. SQL .. which way do we go?


There probably isn't a simple, slam dunk, black and white answer. Here are
some thoughts from what I've observed over the last 3 or 4 years.

-- There's a really strong paradigm of developing database-driven apps in
Access, then deploying them in production in SQL.

-- An Access-driven app CAN work in production, if you know your volume is
low.

-- The back-end database engine for Access has gotten much better over time.

-- You really can't declare that Access won't work, or that SQL is the sine
qua non, without thinking about overall performance goal, hardware used for
servers, size of the database, nature of transactions, and transaction load. 

-- If it's in production with a potentially high transaction load, I'd go
with SQL as the back end.

-- Contradicting all of that, it's possible to worry too much.  :-)

/rich



Vicki Falkland wrote:

> 
> dear all,
> 
> our library is planning to convert our static HTML journals list into a
> dynamic list. i am a total newbie when it comes to dynamic websites and
> databases. i do follow threads posted here on this topic, and have searched
> the Archives, but i need to ask something about different methods please
..
> 
> CURRENTLY: our journal titles are all contained in an Access(2000) database
> (by a colleague), which we use to print hard copy lists and reports, but
> the web version is hand-coded (by me). therefore, we are maintaining two
> lists. 
> 
> THE ORIGINAL PLAN: with help from our organisation's webmaster (for a fee;
> our webmaster charges for his time and expertise), we would move the info
> from the Access database into SQL, which i presume would mean we'd have to
> learn SQL to maintain it. we would also have a web-based admin page set up
> so that either of us could edit the (single) list as necessary.
> 
> THE PROPOSED NEW PLAN: my colleague has now suggested that Access2002 is
> miraculous and will do everything we want without having to bother with
> SQL, or the webmaster, or the webmaster's fee (although of course there
> would be the cost of upgrading Access). the claim is that Access2002 is
> more "flexible" than SQL, and that it will be easier for us to maintain.
> 
> i'm nervous .... and not convinced that Access2002 is the answer.
> can anyone give me reasons (in simple terms please!) why i'm wrong to think
> this proposed new plan is a Bad Idea ? 
> 
> i'm willing to BE convinced, but i need to hear it from someone far more
> experienced and knowledgable on this topic than myself OR my esteemed
> colleague :)
> 
> thanks,
> vicki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Library Information Technology Support Officer
> 
> ===============================================
> Women's and Children's Health
> J.W. Grieve Library
> Royal Children's Hospital
> Flemington Rd, Parkville, Vic, 3052
> Ph: (03) 9345 7010
> Fax: (03) 9347 8421
> Email: rch.library at wch.org.au
> Internet: www.wch.org.au/library
> ================================================

____________________________________________________
Richard Wiggins
Writing, Speaking, and Consulting on Internet Topics
rich at richardwiggins.com       www.richardwiggins.com