Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4

    Question Database Design Software???

    HI ALL,

    i am very very new to all this. I have a general knowledge of SQL and i was wondering which software to use to build the Database surface???

    I need the Database allowing data creation and maintenance, and search and other access.

    I read about Microsoft ACCES or Microsoft® SQL Server® 2008 R2 Express...

    help please

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    How many persons will be using the database simultaneously?
    Do the users need to access it over the web?
    How large will the database be?
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    13,692
    no to sure what you mean by the database surface
    do you mean the actual database itself...
    the tables, queries, views and so on
    or do you mean the front end...
    ...the user interface , how you display data to the user (in Access speak thats the forms, reports and so on)

    Access has a default data storage mechanism which can have problems if you have more than 15..30 concurrent users, however you can use an Access front end to talk to server datastores such as SQL Server.

    depednign on what you need to do then there are other contenders out there.. if you are on a budget then something like MySQL could be a good choice. a lot depends on what you are trying to do, what sort of budget you've got and so on.
    I'd rather be riding on the Tiger 800 or the Norton

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by blindman View Post
    How many persons will be using the database simultaneously?
    Do the users need to access it over the web?
    How large will the database be?

    I will be the only person that has access to the database and it doesn't has to be accessed over the web,only from the server in house.

    The database will be one for Doctors,so it means that the user can search for doctors with different specialities and places. So there will be around 1000 names of doctors........

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by healdem View Post
    no to sure what you mean by the database surface
    do you mean the actual database itself...
    the tables, queries, views and so on
    or do you mean the front end...
    ...the user interface , how you display data to the user (in Access speak thats the forms, reports and so on)

    Access has a default data storage mechanism which can have problems if you have more than 15..30 concurrent users, however you can use an Access front end to talk to server datastores such as SQL Server.

    depednign on what you need to do then there are other contenders out there.. if you are on a budget then something like MySQL could be a good choice. a lot depends on what you are trying to do, what sort of budget you've got and so on.
    i am talking about the user interface...like giving him a choice of dropdown menus and so on on to search in the database....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    In front of the computer
    Posts
    15,579
    For a single user, Microsoft Access ought to be a good fit. It doesn't scale well (Access can't run hundreds or thousands of users well), but for one person (or even a few) Access is usually dandy!

    -PatP
    In theory, theory and practice are identical. In practice, theory and practice are unrelated.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    13,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Phelan View Post
    For a single user, Microsoft Access ought to be a good fit. It doesn't scale well (Access can't run hundreds or thousands of users well), but for one person (or even a few) Access is usually dandy!

    -PatP
    FWIW Access can support, certainly, hundreds of concurrent users without a problem, providing you use a server back end and design the application using unbound controls in forms.

    id you use the default storage engione (JET) you have problems somewhere around the 15..30 concurrent users. if you use bound controls then problems may occur at a slightly lower threshold.
    I'd rather be riding on the Tiger 800 or the Norton

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    Quote Originally Posted by healdem View Post
    FWIW Access can support, certainly, hundreds of concurrent users without a problem, providing you use a server back end and design the application using unbound controls in forms.
    Then its not really Access supporting it, is it?
    Access is ok for, say, five users on a local network.
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    13,692
    Quote Originally Posted by blindman View Post
    Then its not really Access supporting it, is it?
    Access is ok for, say, five users on a local network.
    Nope I disagree, the limits you refer to are when using JET for backend datastorage, and I'd argue those limits kick in somewhere around 15..30 concurrent users. Access can happily talk to virtually any form of backend storage, ranging from flat files to server products.

    If your SQL server installation is capable of supporting 50 concurrent users, then a competantly written Access application is capable of supporting thsoe 50 or whatever concurrent users.

    However to leverage the power of server backends you have to write the Access appliciation to suit that product, and that means diswconnected recordsets, unbound controls on forms, not using the inbuilt wizards. For the average Access developer not using the wizareds is a leap to far as it requires extensive use of VBA.

    The worst possible scenario in my mind is an application developed talking to JET then 'upsized' to SQL Server with no further changes, you then have the worst of both worlds, and a clogged network. a problem which many organisations sling money at hardware such upgrading the server, and or the network not knowing or realising that you have to remove the throttle stop imposed by the bound controls inhernet in the wizards.

    But that isn't a fault of Access, thats the fault of the developer, or the organisation developing that application.
    I'd rather be riding on the Tiger 800 or the Norton

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    The Bottom of The Barrel
    Posts
    6,102
    Quote Originally Posted by blindman View Post
    Then its not really Access supporting it, is it?
    Access is ok for, say, five users on a local network.
    Eh, I'd argue that one. All layers of a given solution need to "support" the application. Access can do just fine scaling to a large number of users when it is relegated to presentation and light BLL concerns.
    oh yeah... documentation... I have heard of that.

    *** What Do You Want In The MS Access Forum? ***

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    In front of the computer
    Posts
    15,579
    Blindman and healdm both make good points about where the problem occurs. We can have a lively discussion about the "why" and the "where", but the short answer still boils down to Microsoft Access is a great tool for one person, a good tool for a small group (with small varying between five and thirty, depending on who you ask), but a tool that requires serious professional help to scale beyond that small group.

    Microsoft Access was designed to make it easy for a new database user to get started with databases. It can handle a small group of users without significant changes. As the group grows you'll need to use more and more esoteric techniques to support those users, but it can be done if you have sufficient time, talent, and money.

    For the problem that mamanbeti originally described, I'm pretty sure that Microsoft Access should work nicely!

    -PatP
    In theory, theory and practice are identical. In practice, theory and practice are unrelated.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    Teddy and Healdem are missing my point.
    Access is, first and foremost, a databases engine. And that is how the majority of lay-people view it.
    Its important to be clear that when you are staging that it can support hundreds of users, you are NOT referring to using the database portion. You are only using the forms, reports, etc.
    In such an environment, I would not say the MS Access is "supporting" the users. The back-end database is supporting the users, regardless of what interface they are using.

    And I have seen MS Access have issues with file corruption when used by more than five concurrent users, though this was an old version about 10 years ago.
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    The Bottom of The Barrel
    Posts
    6,102
    No, I got your point and agree with everything except excluding all layers save for persistence from the burden of "supporting" users. Proper scalability is about more than just your database.

    We were making the same point about Access usually being viewed as the whole package and the importance of pointing out Access only scales well when relieved of concerns related to physical persistence.

    Pat makes a better point that within the scope of the original question, Access is probably just fine.
    oh yeah... documentation... I have heard of that.

    *** What Do You Want In The MS Access Forum? ***

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    Pat for the win, then, and I concur.
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    13,692
    Quote Originally Posted by blindman View Post
    Teddy and Healdem are missing my point.
    Access is, first and foremost, a databases engine. And that is how the majority of lay-people view it.
    <rant>
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, Access isn't a database engine, never has been never will be. look under the covers and its JET, always has been, but may not always be.

    No Im not missing your point, Im trying to suggest your point is irrelevant.

    Access is a frontend developmrnt tool, that happens to default to JET for data storage unless you specify differently.

    do people using JET databases and connecting via VB, .NET, C++ or whatever call their applications an Access application.. of course not (unless they are incredibly dumb that is). when using a MDB from those languages you connect to the data by specfying an JET driver.

    yes there are corruption issues with JET data stored in MDB's especially if when using JET as the storage mechanism you don't split the application into a front and a back end.

    Ive yet to come across a corruption issue when connecting to a server backend, whether that back end is SQL Server, MySQL or DB2. Ive seen and worked on several multi hundred concurrent users using an Access Front end, IIRC the largest was at "Air Miles". Access backed by a server data stroe and competantly designed will happily support as many concurrent users as the database can support.

    Its about time the myth that Access is only suitable for sub 10 concurrent users was laid to rest, and I would have expected someone who is a professional in this field to know better than assert such a stupid statement. its perfectly valid to assert that Access using Jet has problems, it only really works for a limtied number of concurrent users. but thats like saying a car doesn't work when you put the wrong fuel in it.

    its the same sort of sloppy thinking and talking that allows the misinformed to assume that SQL Server is the orginal SQL product, is the only SQL server and so on.
    </rant>
    I'd rather be riding on the Tiger 800 or the Norton

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •