[plug] MySQL versus NT SQL Server

[Dave T Burbidge]

Greetings!

I've (unfortunately) got MS-SQL at work (I'm working on that (I'm currently
looking at PostgreSQL (but open to suggestions), so I'd love to hear how
things work out, and what arguments you threw at Mgt. :)

For the record, if you can get ODBC happening, then you use Access as a front
end (the only reason I'd do this is either quick-and-dirty, or existing
system you don't wanna re-program) - link (not import) the SQL tables into
Access, and you're off - if you feel like it, you can also create the links
between tables, so you get Access checking the cascading stuff.

Hope this helps :)

Dave Burbidge

Christian wrote:

> On Sun, May 14, 2000 at 10:50:40AM +0800, Nick Bannon wrote:
> > On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 10:14:33AM +0800, Christian wrote:
> > [...]
> > > experiences using MySQL I strongly recommend that you don't use it if
> > > you require any real RDBMS features -- it simply doesn't have them.
> > > Even Access actually has these sorts of features.  If you want a
> > [...]
> >
> > Are you sure?
> > Microsoft sells at least three database products - Visual FoxPro (for
> > programming), Access (for clicky pointy officey sorts of things) and
> > SQL Server (oh, you actually want something decent?), and I can only
> > find claims of that sort about SQL Server.
>
> Access isn't any sort of enterprise-level RDBMS but it does support
> features like cascade-update and cascade-delete in a way more conformant
> with SQL92 than any other DBMS I've used -- most do it with triggers,
> Access does it automatically.  Of course there are still plenty of ways
> that Access is highly-deficient but if someone already has a database in
> Access then there are going to be issues like that where the new DBMS
> probably doesn't have the set of features and there would be problems
> during a port over.

--
Dave :)

-----------------------------------
ICQ:     19634125
-----------------------------------

This Murphy person has a LOT to answer for :)