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.
Related
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
After seeing a lot of things in the internet I haven't found any explanation between the two file types: .mdf and .sdf.
.sdf would be a compact version of SQL Server (.mdf) I believe. Still they appear utterly different.
Have followed the two tutorials on msdn, i.e. MVC Movie App and the Musicstore. Both use .sdf.
Partial quote (full): 'First of all it should be "|DataDirectory|ASPNETDBContext.mdf" (notice the extension difference). Your applic...'
Both tutorials have the connection string to .sdf, i.e.:
<add name ="MovieDBContext"
connectionString ="Data Source=|DataDirectory|Movies.sdf"
providerName ="System.Data.SqlServerCe.4.0"
/>
<add name ="MusicStoreEntities"
connectionString ="Data Source=|DataDirectory|MvcMusicStore.sdf"
providerName ="System.Data.SqlServerCe.4.0"
/>
Question:
My question is what to use where and when? More over why to use which where.
SQL Server Compact (sdf files) popular in Windows phone for storing some data (small count of data), also it could be used in web sites, but it has poor performance, even SQLite is better.
SQL Server (mdf files) used in big sites with a lot of data. Its more powerful, but cant be used in phones and must be installed on servers.
Look this: Comparison of SQL Server Compact, SQL Server Express 2012 and LocalDB
SQL Server Compact Edition is indeed quite different from "regular" SQL Server.
SQL Server CE is a stand-alone, one-user database that gets loaded by your application on the machine where your code runs; it has all data in the one single .sdf file and support only a small subset of the "regular" SQL Server (and its features). SQL Server CE is great for simple, stand-alone, one-user apps (like phone apps).
"Real" SQL Server is a server product - you install it on a server, your clients only connect to it (typically, the client machines don't have SQL Server itself installed). It's a full-blown RDBMS with everything - stored proc, triggers etc. and thus best optimized to handle structured, large-scale data - think enterprise applications, such as order handling, invoicing, accounting, large-scale databases for multiple users of any kind.
First, the sql server database file is not a full sql server database, if you're creating it in this fashion it's a sql server express. Sql Server Express databases aren't terribly fantastic to use since most hosts don't run sql server express and publishing them is tricky if you then try to get them running on a sql server database. Better to start with sql server first then express and migrate.
the local db is actually sql server compact edition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_Server_Compact
For connection strings, go to http://www.connectionstrings.com/sql-server/ There is pretty much every connection string available there. To work with SQL Server Express you will need to have it installed, and to manage it you will need to download the sql server express management tools. Generally, most sql express instances are designed to be used with local accounts but if I remember correctly you can use the management tools to create a sql server login.
A client wants to host their MS Access 2003 backend database into SQL Server 2008 that resides in a different server. They will be using upsizing wizard to move their databases and tables into SQL server.
A client also has MS Access front end application written in VB. After upsizing their database tables to SQL, they want to use SQL server to read/write data and also use adv. programmability features of SQL Server like stored Procs, functions etc. My team will host their SQL database.
Client will have a growing # of users entering data. So what would be the best option for our team to provide access to our SQL server so that they can use only their databases in our SQL Server?Is there a way to provide them a connection string or something like that so that they could test it in their front end application to see if they could connect to our SQL Server to read/write?Basically I want to know What are the different avenues to connect MS Access 2003 front end application written in VB to connect to SQL Server database hosted in a different server so that a user could read/write to SQL database tables? Any thoughts? Thanks.
Actually, how this setup works is not any different than if your developers were using c++, vb.net, c# or even asp.net. At the end of the day these software development tools such as c++, or FoxPro or MS Access are simply tools that let you write software. The ability of Access to connect to MySql or Oracle or insert your favorite X database brand has existed from day one.
As long as your database supports what is called "open database connectivity" then you are off to the races. And how you setup that database server to allow some software written in say c# or FoxPro or MS Access will not really change much of anything to my knowledge.
So Access is just like any other software tool such as c++ or vb.net – it is a tool that lets you write code and you connect that application and user interface to some database system you choose.
The connection technology that Access uses here is based on industry standards and thus your setup and maintains of the server side will quite much be the same for any other application(s) that you have running on premises that utilize SQL server now.
About the only relevant issue here is that in Access you have a choice of two data object models, ADO and DAO. Right now, since Microsoft is depreciating ADO and they are continuing investment in DAO and also recommending to use open database connectivity. For example, Access 2010 ships with support baked in for SQL Azure (cloud sql), and that support is based on open database connectivity.
So at this point time as it did back in 2003 the recommend data object model in Access is to use DAO.
You can read about the depreciation of ADO support in SQL server here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqlnativeclient/archive/2011/08/29/microsoft-is-aligning-with-odbc-for-native-relational-data-access.aspx
While a for good number of general exports and imports and that of linking to SQL server can occur 100% inside of Access, those users will STILL need a set of client tools beyond Access to effectively work with SQL server if over time they going to start using SQL server features. This thus suggests they will need some edition of SSMS (Sql server management studio). The free express version of SSMS should more than suffice in this case.
I recently got a new primary computer. On my old one, I was working with MS Visual Studio 2008 (or maybe an older version - I can't remember now). I had managed to get SQLite working with it and was in the start/middle of building an application.
On the new computer, I now have MS Visual Studio 2010. I have had problems getting SQLite to work with it. Honestly, I haven't tried super hard yet, because I realized I pretty much want to completely redesign this application anyway and it got me thinking... do I really want to use SQLite or some other SQL? MS SQL (or is it called SQL Server)? MySQL?
My end goal is to have an application that can be installed by the user with one .msi file and the user should not have direct access to the database (although at this stage, that is a secondary concern).
It seems like MS SQL / SQL Server is the easiest since it's also an MS product.... Would love some opinions!
(along with the opinions, I'd also love to be pointed to current instructions... I'm a programmer, I'm not a "coding environment setup" person and have always struggled with this. All I want is to get in there and write my application!)
Thanks in advance!
-Adeena
PS... I'm currently working with C# and would prefer to stick with it, but could easily do this in C++ (I'm fluent in all the flavors of C) if that makes a difference with the database.
SQL Server would be a good choice by the sounds of what you're after. Try the express version - it's free, good for development and prototyping and integrates really well with Visual Studio.
The SQL Server Management Studio tool is excellent. I use this to create the databases I need and then use Visual Studio to manage them (saves switching windows and running both applications when you're working in VS all day anyway). I used to have my issues with the old Enterprise manager software but things really seems to have stepped up for SQL Server 2008 and the new management studio.
Like the title of your question suggests, you're wanting to use this with Visual Studio. If you decide to do use SQL Server then you should:
Download the express edition
Download SQL Server management studio
Create a database
In Visual Studio - click View -> Server explorer -> right click Data connections and add connection. Select MS SQL Express and choose localhost as your server. You can then select the database you created using the management studio.
There you have it - integration with VS.
You say you're using C#.Net - well SQL server and .Net go hand-in-hand. Obviously you can hook up to other third party databases but SQL was really made to work with this stuff. It's a powerful database engine and will do everything you'll ever need as well as being well supported by Microsoft and the wider community.
If your final goal is to have hands-off single-click installation then I don't think SQL Server Express is your best bet because it's not a file-based embedded database. It's a great db and very easy to work with, but when it comes to deployment still takes some installation effort. You could try one of: SQL Server Compact Edition, SQLite or Firebird Embedded.
SQLExpress is free and for development purposes is pretty much interchangeable with the full SQLServer
http://www.microsoft.com/express/Database/
SQL SERVER seems to be the logical one.
We have a Sql Server 2005 Standard Edition running on a Production website. We'd like to move to a cloud hosting but they only offer Sql Server Express Edition on there.
My question is, will there be any problems in moving over? We only use tables, views, stored procedures and a few user defined functions. And we also have a Backup Maintenance Plan in place. Will any if this change?
WHat other limitations/problems (if any) can we expect to have? And is it a good idea to run on Express in Production?
And I would like to add, will it be OK if we moved from SQL server 2005 Standard to Sql Server 2008 Express - what possible problems there could be with this move?
There are limitations for SQL Server 2005 Express as listed here
These include:
- max 1GB RAM only
- max DB size of 4GB
- 1 CPU
Theses restrictions may cause you a problem. See the full list in the link.
With regrd to moving from 2005 Standard, to 2008 Express, then I expect the limitations of Express Edition may be the main factor when you consider if it really is an option. The limitations for 2008 Express are similar, see here.
Hope this helps
The migration im unsure.
Express does not support triggers (fully), nor SQL scheudling.
Its size is limited to 4GB.
You can only ever have one instance with express.
It does however support Full Text and Reporting Services (in the express advanced edition)
We have plenty of clients running SQL Express due to cost. Only small pain has been the need to write a windows service for a job that could be easily run in proper SQL scheduling in the paid for the version.
Im sure there are many more differences but these are the ones im aware of, hope this helps.
I've used SQL Server Express for simple data persistence in production with no issues.
From the looks of your situation the only feature that will not be supported is backup maintenance. However, if you're hosted on a cloud, your ISP should take care of backup for you.