Re: Cross Post DATABASE QUESTION

Anthony Mandic <av_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> Carl Doan wrote:

>>> PupppyWizzard_at_glay.org (Pupppy Wizzard) wrote
>>>
>>> Hi. We are setting up a new database. We previously used MS Access,
>>> but we want something better.
>>>
>>> What would be a good choice for a company with 300 employees
>>
>> Depending on what you have to work with and what you are planning to put
>> on the database server, I would first look to Sybase or MSSQL. With
>> those two, you have ease of administring, scalability ( up to several
>> TBs ), and lower cost of ownership. At least with MS SQL, the learning
>> curve will be much lower. I have been working with MS SQL for over a
>> year, and I would not recommend it for "mission critical" systems yet.
>>
>> If your organization is look towards terabytes of data, perhaps UDB,
>> which is maturing. I have mixed reviews with UDB and it's cold backup
>> requirements ( same with Oracle ), but they both have proven track
>> records. Oracle can scale very well, but I think starting out with
>> Oracle can be counter productive unless you have that experience already
>> in-house and you have the cash to throw around.

> 	What doesn't really surprise me is the falling standards of DBAs.
> 	This is the first reply to actual point in the right direction.

> 	Apart from the obvious stupidity of asking such a question
> 	crossposted across such newsgroups, the requirements weren't
> 	really mentioned apart from supporting 300 users. The obvious
> 	choice comes after making some elemental capacity planning.
> 	Saying 300 users is next to irrelevant. What those 300 users
> 	do is what is important. How active are they? How much storage
> 	do they require? Based on the fact that they are using MS Access
> 	now, I doubt its very much.

> -am	© 2003

Yes, what those 300 users do is very important. In sybase, you could use Sybase ASE, Sybase ASA or Sybase IQ. Received on Sun Jun 08 2003 - 11:17:12 CDT