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: oracle vs. ms access

Re: oracle vs. ms access

From: JGH <johnheim_at_nospam.tds.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:07:34 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <cj1uq6$nv3$2@news.doit.wisc.edu>


Glen A Stromquist <glenstr_at_no_spam_canada.com> wrote in news:rUZ4d.82749 $KU5.52994_at_edtnps89:

> Terence Hill wrote:
>

>> This sounds like a joke, but my company really thinks about a supply >> software that is based on a access db. Please give me comments against

>> access in relation to oracle.
>> 
>> Thanks for help
>> 
>> Walter 
>> 
>> 

>
> I'd be suspicious of any software package that is based solely on an
> MSaccess db, usually a package will run on an Accessdb for demo
purposes
> or very limited use, but there is usually a SQL Server and/or Oracle
> back end available in the "enterprise" versions.
>
> If your data is critical and/or security will be an issue , then *my*
> advice is stay away from access, where I work there are literally
dozens
> of these "access databases" people have conjured up to do a specific
> task, then someone decides this is now "critical" information and soon
> the thing balloons in to a full blown app that is depended on by many.
> What happens then is the original author is usually long gone, our
help
> desk gets a "database" call because suddenly nothing is working on
this
> "database" - guess who then gets the call to look at some app like
this,
> that NO documentation exists for and the gobbledy-gook code in it has
to
> be figured out so you can guess what the original intent was etc.. and
> the mdb file that holds the whole shebang is corrupted, no backups
exist
> for etc. etc. (ok I'll stop ranting)
>
> Right now I'm trying to hunt as many of these things down as I can and
> at least move the tables in to oracle schema's or sql server
> "databases", then they can keep the access front end they are familar
> with, the lesser of two evils I guess. The tables then can at least be
> recoverable with this scenario.
>
> But since you have not provided more details as the other pointed out,
> detailed advice is hard to give out, it could turn out that an access
> database may be sufficient for what the intended purpose is.
>
> hth

There used to be notes in the Microsoft knowledgebase that said not to use Access for high-traffic web sites. IIRC, it may have said not to use it for high volume applications at all since the locking mechanism is kind of bogus.

If you want ammo to keep them from buying the Access product, you can probably find it on Microsoft's own web site. Received on Fri Sep 24 2004 - 15:07:34 CDT

Original text of this message

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