Did you see anything that would impact upon the integrity of the data? The
data is not compromised, a query returned incorrect results, and a work
around was provided to fix it. That happens in every DBMS.
Arvin Meyer
onsite_at_esinet.net
Jerry Gitomer wrote in message <7gs31d$va$1_at_autumn.news.rcn.net>...
>To quote a posting in another thread:
>
>"The recent Microsoft Knowledge Base article Q225141 of 27-APR-1999
>says that executing a query with a union can cause an error.
>
>The suggested workaround is to not use union.
>Instead one should create a stored procedure that inserts the records
>from each select into a temporary table, and then
>change the query to select from that temp table."
>
>This type of bug is the reason that I, for one, prefer to have nothing to
do
>with SQL Server. Here we have basic SQL functionality that doesn't work.
>
>What else slipped past their "quality control"?
>
>If I dare to use SQL Server am I going to come in one morning and discover
>that my database is scrambled beyond redemption and that my backups
>corrupted?
>
>I make my living as a DBA. As such my first responsibility is to assure
the
>integrity of the data in my databases. It really doesn't matter if an
RDBMS
>is faster, cheaper, easier to manage or whatever if it cannot guarantee the
>integrity of the data it contains.
>
>regards
>
>Jerry Gitomer
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>---
>Randy Baker wrote in message <#IL4rRyl#GA.179_at_cpmsnbbsa02>...
>>Another angle not mentioned in the other (mostly anti-SQL Server) posts:
>>
>>If you do many joins and are using the INNER JOIN or LEFT OUTER JOIN
>syntax,
>>then you will have to rewrite any of your Access queries that use these.
>SQL
>>Server will accept most Access SELECT statement syntax without
>modification.
>>
>>If you are an MS shop (and it appears that you are based on your
question),
>>I would go with SQL Server, if only because all the Oracle stuff will
>appear
>>totally foreign to what you are used to. SQL Server (particularly 7.0) is
>>*much* easier to set up and administer. Oracle can certainly claim
>>scalability advantages, but these aren't likely to apply to an upsized
>>Access database, nor are they likely to apply to anything running on NT.
>>
>>Randy
>>
>>Ling wrote in message ...
>>>Hi all,
>>>Our project team is looking into upsizing a VB/Access database to either
>MS
>>>SQL Server/ Oracle on NT. We don't know what their main differences are
>and
>>>which one we should use. Any information regarding this subject or any
>>>recommendation will be very appreciated.
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance
>>>
>>>Ling
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thu May 06 1999 - 09:07:36 CDT
