I'm working on a database driven program in Visual Studio 2015, in C#, Windows Form Application, and I'm using SQL Server 2014 for my databases, downloaded the most recent version from the MSDN site.
I've got it working well. But if I want other users on other computers and different versions of Windows, this would require them to have SQL Server installed, correct?
Basically the app is used for storing current medications, moods, a mood quiz, symptoms, etc.. and I store all the results in SQL Server databases. They can be edited, deleted, etc through the program's GUI. Do the users need SQL Server installed to use this app?
If so, is there an alternative to keeping databases without having to have the SQL Server connections, or is there a way to do this without the users having to have SQL Server installed? I don't want remote connections to me, I want it standalone.
Does this make any sense? If not, I can explain more. I know way back in the days of Visual Basic 4 I was making, reading and writing databases without SQL. But that was 16 years ago. So I'm wondering what the easiest solution to this is. Thanks!
In other words, you want a database that you can a) distribute to end users freely and b) that will 'connect' just to the copy of the database they have stored locally.
Here are a few options ---
SQLite over ODBC is as-easy-to-use as MSSQL, the driver can be found here:
SQLite ODBC
Use ConfigurationManager.OpenExeConfiguration to read / write your app config .xml file and use it as a key / value store. I can provide examples if needed.
Dynamically create an Access database, it should work as well as MSSQL for most things, with less overhead. Here's how:
Create an Access Database
Use SQLIte DLL. Details on SO
create-sqlite-database-and-table
Related
I am not very familiar with Access database till now i was only programming to SQL Server but now it's time to do so. I am building WinForms application which will be using Access database and i have some question related to that point if you don't mind. My application will be used by multiple users and there will be one access databsae. My questions as below:
Is there any problem with accessing access database in same time by many users or only one user can be connected?
If i develop my program to use access 2016 and some of my users will have diffrent windows version and also diffrent access version
will it works?
Should i know something else? :)
If your client want to have a file based database and this is a project constraint , MS Access is the best choice. If you want a more detailed advice, please let me know how many users will perform Read/Write or Read transactions, the size of the database and if the application will run in client-server mode in a LAN/WAN, Cloud or Remote Desktop environment.
Back to your questions:
Depending on these conditions you may range from 10 to 20/25 users. Remember that you can always try with MS Access and later upgrade to a MS SQL database in a couple of hours.
If your front-end application can link to a 2016 Access database, it will do that without installing MS Access to the clients that will run your App, i.e. the vb.net compiled App will install all needed drivers. If you develop your App within MS Access 2016 (Access Form and reports, some VBA) you can run it with the free runtime version of MS Access, but this only when no older version of Access is installed on the running workstation.
Please check with your client the real reasons for a file-based database...
To answer the questions as asked:
You might run into an issue with this, as access was really designed as a personal use database. Having anything more than a small handful of users hitting against it at once will in fact cause problems, as it's not really well designed for that purpose...
This should in theory be fine, as the application itself is interfacing with the database, not the end user...
It seems like you're taking a step backwards using access for this, and SQL might very well be better suited for this purpose. This isn't me trying to just bash access either, this comes from personal experience. Going with this sort of design is likely to cause you more headaches than good.
I understand that this is painfully generic and broad. Nonetheless, all the answers on wikipedia and yahoo (none here that I can find) are pretty useless.
I know T-SQL, C#, etc to some degree. I understand the idea of a database. However, I have NO idea what I created when I made a "server" on my computer through Msft SQL Server. Now I can make databases on that server, and I can connect to them with Visual Studio (sometimes) to use with LINQ or "raw" calls.
Please help me understand (or direct me to an article) of what this myComputerName\SQLEXPRESS (SQL Server xx.x.xxx) thing is. I assume the databases are stored locally...somewhere. SQL Server provides access to the DB files? Why can't they be accessed directly?
Thank you if you even read all this. I really can't narrow the question down.
I guess one specific question is "Can I access the databases without SQL Server running?" Where do I even get the connection string?
You are asking multiple questions, here.
However, I have NO idea what I created when I made a "server" on my
computer through Msft SQL Server. Now I can make databases on that
server, and I can connect to them with Visual Studio (sometimes) to
use with LINQ or "raw" calls.
Please help me understand (or direct me to an article) of what this
myComputerName\SQLEXPRESS (SQL Server xx.x.xxx) thing is.
The layout of a database server is as follows:
Server
Instance a
database aa
database ab
...
Instance b
database ba
database bb
...
...
So, when you install MS SQL Server, you install a MS SQL Server "instance". In this "instance", you can create a number databases. Each database has database files, the exact location of these depends on the settings you chose during installation.
I guess one specific question is "Can I access the databases without
SQL Server running?"
You do not usually open dbf(mdf -ldf) files (the database data files) without MS SQL Server, why would you want to ? You should use the backup/restore features inside MS SQL Server.
Where do I even get the connection string?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.sqlclient.sqlconnection.connectionstring%28v=vs.110%29.aspx
The "server" is a process/service running on your computer which can be connected to over the network and provides the API to access your database.
"Why can't they be accessed directly?" Is like asking why do I need Word to view Word files, can't I use Notepad for that. Sure you can, but not really.
Another reason is - imagine multiple processes need to access the database. If each reads and writes to the same files, something WILL break if they don't coordinate. Having a separate server process encapsulates all this.
"Can I access the databases without SQL server running?" I mean yes but actually no.
If you want a database that your program accesses directly (or let's say, your program is also the database server in a sense) - then you can use sqlite, or for simple tasks there are also ODBC drivers for CSV, so you can use CSV files as if they were a database. A dedicated SQL server is always better for bigger more complex tasks and data models though.
Here's task: We have an sql server database. which is hosted at our server. What we need to do is: we need to create a non-techy-users interface (basically insert/edit forms) and let these non-techy-users to install this database locally, since they are located in the areas without internet connection. Then when they're done using the database we get the data from them and inster it in our database.
The biggest concern is that it is not trivial for non-it people to install sql server. Can you please advise me what solution should I choose? Simple Access should work fine, but i really do not want to mess with it and have data conversion back and forth between engines.
Sync Framework for SQL Server: your application uses a lite weight, embedded SQL Server CE (no installation, just a couple of DLLs deployed along with your app) and the sync framework manages the synchronization with the 'mother ship' SQL Server.
Out of interest, why do they need their own installation? Can't you create a new database on your existing instance?
If you're looking for an easy way to create insert/edit forms on your database, have you considered looking at Microsoft's new LightSwitch product (currently in Beta) or Microsoft's Dynamic Data?
I am trying to migrate from Access Database to SQL server database. Do I need to make changes (for saving, reading, deleting etc. data) to my code as well?
I understand I need to change connection but what about code?
Thanks
Furqan
For the most part, Access SQL Queries are very similar to SQL Server Queries. Therefore, unless you're using Access-specific constructs such as Val, CInt, etc in your queries, you can safely migrate to SQL Server.
It is recommended though, that you thoroughly test the program after migration lest you run into 'strange' errors.
I'm sure the conversion will require some time and troubleshooting. For one, Access through version 2007 uses VBA for the back-end code and SQL Server's programming is quite different from VBA. Developer's transitioning from Visual Basic 6 (very similar to VBA) to VB.NET ran into quite a few challenges.
Also, keep in mind that SQL Server is best used as the back-end storage engine. The user interface is typically written in a .NET language using Visual Studio. SQL Server (at least through 2005 -- I haven't used 2008) doesn't have user interface components like a File Open dialog box.
I am currently developing a very simple database that tracks people and the company certifications they hold. This db will need to store letters of certification as PDF files. I was asked to develop this in MS Access, but I think it would be better to build it in SQLServer and use Windows Forms to build the interface. This app will need to be accessible from a public location like a share drive.
My question is, would it be better to do this in SQLServer like I think, or am I full of it and my boss is right on the money? Or are we both wrong?
A good alternative to Access which I use a lot is SQL Server Compact (SqlCe). This is a completely different product than SQL Server Express/Standard/etc. It is an in-process database like Access, it does not run as a separate process or service.
It is free
Full ACID support
Supports multiple connections
Full transactional support
Referential integrity (including cascading updates and deletes)
Locking
T-SQL syntax and SQL Server data types (same API as SQL Server)
Small footprint (~2 MB)
Easy deployment (supports ClickOnce, MSI, XCopy, etc)
Database is contained in a single file you can move around
Supports ADO.NET, LINQ to SQL, LINQ to Entities.
This is an extremely difficult question, without an understanding of the scale of the application. In my opinion, I wouldn't touch Access with a 33.5 ft pole.
Benefits of Access:
No dedicated machine necessary
No problems with portability
Benefits of SQL Server
Better SQL compliance
Better management control
Are you planning to store PDF files in the DB? If so, why?
I choose SQL Server.
An application built on SQL Server will be more robust and support more users than one built on MS Access.
An application built on MS Access can be easier to debug because there is a lack of a server, lack of significant multi-user support, and the entire database sits in a single file on disk that is easily copied around.
Given that, in almost every case, I choose SQL Server over MS Access.
Argh, do the world a favour & use SQL server. Express editions are free, and plenty powerfull enough for your requirements. You can even continue to do the form/report/UI design in Access if you so desire, it can hook up to SQL Server very easily and transparently.
Pros of SQL over access: concurrency, scalablity, reliabiliy, less future developers trying to hunt you down and kill you.
I would almost never use access for a db if I could avoid it, now that SQL Express exists.
If I were you I'd go with what some of the others said and use SQL Express:
http://www.microsoft.com/express/sql/default.aspx
You get all the benefits of a true SQL environment FOR FREE! You can even use the SQL Management Studio as well as leverage Reporting Services (if you download the advanced pack). Download link below:
http://www.microsoft.com/express/sql/download/
Which edition of SQL Server 2008 Express is right for you?
SQL Server 2008 Express is available in the following 3 editions (each is available from the Install Wizard):
SQL Server 2008 Express with Tools
SQL Server database engine - create, store, update and retrieve your data
SQL Server Management Studio Basic - visual database management tool for creating, editing and managing databases
SQL Server 2008 Express with Advanced Services
SQL Server database engine - create, store, update and retrieve your data
SQL Server Management Studio Basic - visual database management tool for creating, editing and managing databases
Full-text Search - powerful, high-speed engine for searching text-intensive data
Reporting Services - integrated report creation and design environment to create reports
SQL Server 2008 Express (Runtime Only)
SQL Server database engine - create, store, update and retrieve your data
SQL Server 2008 Management Studio Express (SSMSE)
Free, easy-to-use graphical management tool for configuring, managing, and administering SQL Server 2008 Express. It can also manage multiple instances of the SQL Server Database Engine created by any edition of SQL Server 2008 including Workgroup, Web, Standard and Enterprise.
Note: This separate download is designed for customers who have previously installed SQL Server 2008 Express (Runtime Only). If you are looking to download SQL Server Express and SSMSE for the first time, please download the SQL Server 2008 Express with Tools from the Install Wizard.
Access, to me, is really a hobbyist tool or for REALLY basic local projects at this point that just hasn't been phased out yet. I'd definitely look to using SQL Express, plus it makes it that much easier to upgrade if you get beyond the 4 GB database barrier in the future.
Go with what you have the best skills in - Access is great for a variety of projects andit can scale really well if you know what you're doing. Conversely, a bad programmer could do an app in Win Forms and SQL Server and produce a badly performing monster.
I personally would go with SQL Express and a Win Forms or ASP.Net front-end as experience shows that these small projects can easily develop over time in to much bigger applications than was originally planned and a well structured database built on SQL Server can scale up more readily to more users if needed.
Hard to say without understand the environment. It could be that all users have Access, but no desktops have .NET Framework (although this would be hard to believe). Maybe all their applications are on Access and that's all the developers and users there know.
Given all that nonsense tho, You ought to use SQL Server Express 2008 and Visual Studio 2008 Express. Hope I don't get you fired. :)
If the application is, as you said, a very simple database, that's what access is precisely for, creating simple databases. You can write both the database and the application forms within the same environment and users won't need to get anything installed.
Be careful though with concurrent access to your application. If you go for the access solution, multiple users won't be able to use the application at the same time. If you want this to happen, you will need the database and the application being apart. This doesn't mean that the DB needs to be SQL server, you can still use Access as your database if you don't require the power of a more complex engine.
EDIT: Just read on a comment that you are planning to have 10 users and less than 1000 records. FORGET about SQL server, you will be wasting your money. No matter if you decide to go for a simple all-access solution or for a distributed web application or desktop app with remote storage, Access is hundreds of times more powerful that what you need. Even for the "toy-ish" engine that access is, you are not using a 1% of it.