Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Oracle8 vs. MS Access

Re: Oracle8 vs. MS Access

From: John Haskins <76054.334_at_compuserve.com>
Date: 1998/12/07
Message-ID: <74hu72$8u5$1@news-1.news.gte.net>#1/1

After many years of programming Access front ends for Oracle databases, I started using Oracle's Develper/2000 to create forms & reports. Very nice. It has far fewer annoying quirks than Access, offers similar speed, and has all the advantages that come from the GUI knowing just about everything about its back end database. Not cheap, but worth it if you have to develop widely-distributed apps, IMHO.

Piquet wrote in message <366C69D1.C957889A_at_bigpond.com>...
>
>Greg Williams wrote:
>
>> I have been asked to research the difference between using a Oracle8
>> database vs. MS Access 97 database. If you could give me specifics on
 the
>> differences and advantages/disadvantages of the two databases I would be
>> most appreciative. Security opinions/detials would be a plus!
>>
>> Greg Williams
>> Lambda Consulting
>> greg.williams_at_lambaconsulting.com
>
>Where do you want to start?
>Access 97 is not designed for a corporate data warehouse. Essentially, it
 is
>useful for smaller, workgroup solutions, and also makes a good, easy to
>develop front end. It is also extremely useful if you are interested in
 rapid
>prototyping. The downside to Access is that it uses the client PC to
 perform
>all of the data selection, updating etc. This means that generally, the
>entire database is transmitted across the network, in order to obtain maybe
>one record of information. Not the most efficient use of bandwith.
>Another problem with Access, (and databases similar, Paradox, FoxPro,
 Dataflex
>etc.) is that it relies on each individual client to ensure that the
 database
>is maintained in a stable state. Transaction Rollback is not as effective,
>and if client PC's crash, the database can continue on other PC's, however
 the
>update may remain inconsistent.
>
>The strength of Oracle, and other like databases is that the Oracle Server
 is
>the only means of accessing the data. This ensures that the database
>integrity is more effectively maintained. Another advantage is that
 network
>bandwith is more effectively utilised. By having a client submit a query,
 and
>only the resulting dataset being transmitted over the network, the network
>traffic is reduced. Further, the client utilises it's processor for what
 it
>does best, managing the user interface, whilst the server does what it does
>best, maintaining the database.
>
>Unfortunately, the complexity of Oracle is far greater than Access, and
>requires some actual learning to be done. Yuk. Access 97 is simple to
>install, and can be picked up quite quickly. A database administrator for
>Access '97 basically has to occassionally repair and compact the database
 to
>ensure that it continues to run. With Oracle, the administrator has to
>actually understand what is going on. This means that the initial setting
 up
>of the database can take far longer, however the resulting performance and
>flexibility is far greater.
>
>One simple note, having set up an Oracle Server, and an MS SQL Server, the
 SQL
>Server was the easier. However, Oracle did outperform it in just about
 every
>other way.
>
>One final note... Oracle has an upsizing tool that converts an Access 97
>database, so the rapid development approach using Access could be
 translated
>to Oracle. (I haven't used this yet though.) I like Oracle, even if I
 don't
>quite fully understand it yet. I can see where it is powerful. I also
 like
>Access, it is easy to program, easy to develop, and easy to maintain. I am
>currently looking at using Oracle as the backend, and Access as the client
>end.
>
>Piquet
>
Received on Mon Dec 07 1998 - 00:00:00 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US