Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Switching from Access DB to alternative

Options
  • 22-10-2004 6:50pm
    #1
    impr0v
    Registered Users Posts: 2,647 ✭✭✭


    I'm relatively new to creating database driven sites and have done a few now using access for the backend. I've seen quite a lot of criticism of it on these pages of late, and know from reading elsewhere that it cannot handle any more than a few simultaneous connections. On most of these sites it isn't really an issue, as the sites were really just to get into using ASP and SQL and aren't really expected to have high levels of users..

    There is one site however, that I'd like to switch over to an alterative db to ensure that it can handle increased user levels without any trouble, and would like to know what my alternatives are. I don't want to switch to PHP, as I've taken the time to learn the basics of ASP and quite like using it. Also, my hosting is on windows machines.

    Is SQL server my best option? I know this is fairly expensive, and will it involve much changing in the site coding, or simply a change on the server side to the DSN and drivers? What other options are there? And will it be hard to migrate the existing data in the Access db onto an sql server database?

    Thanks in advance for any help.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    steve-hosting36
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,161 ✭✭✭steve-hosting36


    Access is fine for 10/15 concurrent users. You can 'upsize' to MS SQL from access very simply (ther eis an MS wizard to do it). So my recommendation would be run with access and monitor usage. Once you feel performance is degrading, or your business/traffic justifies it, move to SQL.


  • Options
    #3
    mneylon
    Registered Users Posts: 7,739 ✭✭✭mneylon


    You could also consider MySQL.
    A number of our clients have migrated from MS SQL to MySQL for quite complex sites without any issues.

    Blog | Tweets



  • Options
    #4
    RicardoSmith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,264 ✭✭✭RicardoSmith


    blacknight wrote:
    You could also consider MySQL.
    A number of our clients have migrated from MS SQL to MySQL for quite complex sites without any issues.

    Why would you migrate to MySQL from MS SQL, which has considerably less features and functionality. If you were already using Ms SQL you must have paid the licence for it anyway. I could understand why you'd use MySQL instead of MS SQL but not downgrade to it.


  • Options
    #5
    impr0v
    Registered Users Posts: 2,647 ✭✭✭impr0v


    steve-hosting36 wrote:
    Access is fine for 10/15 concurrent users. You can 'upsize' to MS SQL from access very simply (ther eis an MS wizard to do it). So my recommendation would be run with access and monitor usage. Once you feel performance is degrading, or your business/traffic justifies it, move to SQL.

    Thanks for that. When you say 10/15 concurrent users, do you mean user sessions, or does each recordset created count as a user. I suspect it's the latter.


  • Options
    #6
    cgarvey
    Registered Users Posts: 3,886 ✭✭✭cgarvey


    RicardoSmith wrote:
    Why would you migrate to MySQL from MS SQL

    Speed .. for simple read-only type websites, MySQL wins hands down. I don't have URLs to prove that, but I've read it lots of places (of reasonable authority), so Google will help you get proof.. and is my experience as well.

    Cost .. any host I've seen charges a premium (of varying degrees) for a MSSQL DSN

    Integration .. almost all opensource web applications use mySQL for backend .. certainly any useful ones I've tinkered with (CMS, Media, Admin, Email apps).

    Like BK says, people do it .. and anyone I know that has done so, have not been ill-informed IMO.

    .cg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    RicardoSmith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,264 ✭✭✭RicardoSmith


    Maybe on low end websites/databases and limited hardware. Any reports I've read that Ms SQL is faster with complex databases with the right hardware. Then you have triggers, stored procs, views, transaction servers, etc to consider. I can't see hosting costs being a big issue on anything other than small systems.

    But ultimately MS SQL is a much "bigger" product than MySQL. Its a different scale of a product. Perhaps people can buy it, realise its too much for their needs and then downsize accordingly. Theres logic to that.


  • Options
    #8
    pork99
    Registered Users Posts: 1,746 ✭✭✭pork99


    How about PostgreSQL as an intermediate step between mySQL and MS SQLServer? Any experiences with that anyone?

    http://www.postgresql.org/

    I've no experience of using it myself btw but it is open source and seems to be a bit more enterprise level than mySQL.


  • Options
    #9
    RicardoSmith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,264 ✭✭✭RicardoSmith


    Never worked with it myself.


  • Options
    #10
    jmcc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,412 ✭✭✭jmcc


    pork99 wrote:
    How about PostgreSQL as an intermediate step between mySQL and MS SQLServer? Any experiences with that anyone?

    http://www.postgresql.org/

    I've no experience of using it myself btw but it is open source and seems to be a bit more enterprise level than mySQL.
    PostgreSQL is real database management software unlike MySQL. It passes the ACID criteria (unlike MySQL) and is well supported. I think that Hosting365.ie offers it as an option. I am not going to get into a Holy War about MySQL vs all other software about this though. Postgres is not an intermediate step between MySQL and SQL Server but an alternative to both of them.

    Regards...jmcc


Advertisement