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

[Bouchard, Kerry]

	The only thing I would add to the other excellent posts I've seen on this subject is that if the pages will be used in Bibliographic Instruction sessions, you may want to look at that to determine the transaction rate you need to support, rather than average use.  We used to have our ejournal, e-database, and library portal tables in Access, and it worked fine "most of the time", but the fact that the scripts started locking up during B.I. sessions was kind of a P.R. problem.  (Not least of all, a P.R. problem for systems support personel vs. the reference librarians left holding the bag during the B.I. sessions.)  However, I believe that was Access 97, so it may be that the newer versions support higher transaction rates, as other posts have suggested.

Kerry Bouchard
Assistant University Librarian for Automated Systems
(817) 257-7923
Mary Couts Burnett Library, TCU


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