Currently, I'm developing a C#-based program for a small rental company (3 locations). Right now, they use MS Access 97 (Jet SQL based) as database and I wish to upgrade this. However, I do want to keep Access as Front-end, since I will be gone after the development, and the local personnel knows how to use Access (some changes require direct editing in the database).
I am doubting between two options:
Upgrade to Access 2013, therefore using MS ACE as DB engine
Use SQL Server Express with Access as front-end, therefore using MS SQL Server as DB engine
The system will have one shared database and one for each location. They are using a shared drive for this (they work on MS Server 2008). Their databases are pretty small (< 1 GB combined), so I won't need the extra performance e.g. MySQL provides. I know the difference between ACE and SQL Server in terms of design (File-sharing vs client/server), but I still don't know what would be better suitable for this situation.
What is the better option here when looking at performance, reliability, security and connection to the application?
Thanks in advance.
As #granadaCoder points out, the security, performance, reliability of using SQLExpress is far better than Jet and ACE and is just as easy to connect/link to your Access 97 front-end. Microsoft provides a free migration tool that is very powerful and easy to use.
Converting an MS-Access 97 application to 2013 may present some real challenges as Cwell. onverting from Access 97 to 2013 is a two step process. You must first convert it to 2002-2003 and then to 2007/2013. You will also need to purchase licenses for all users and the back-end database.
In addition, if your 97 application references external objects, they may not work with later versions of Access.
As #granadaCoder also suggests, a good medium to long term plan would be to convert the front-end to .NET.
Microsoft Jet is just a file sitting on a network drive.
So when you do queries......the Jet-Runtime (on the local PC) has to bring large chunks of data (entire tables) across the network.
Thus it is brutal.
Sql Server (Express or Other)....runs as a service on a host computer. And when a query is executed, it does processing on the Server and returns "smaller buckets of information".
(Which you mention knowing the difference between file-sharing vs client-server).
If you cannot give up your Access(the program) front end...then doing link-tables to Sql-Server would be you best bet, IMHO.
Well, I'm talking from performance.
Security, you have more options for different users and passwords. And you can slice up which logins/db-users are allowed to do what.
IIRC, a Jet database allows one password. Aka, all or nothing.
https://www.connectionstrings.com/ace-oledb-12-0/with-database-password/
That alone would make me go with SqlExpress.
..
The big early design decision was to use Microsoft-Access-Forms. You're paying the price for that early decision.
Even when people use a Jet-Database, I would only use it for basic data storage. And put a Layer .Net application on top of it. Then a swap out to a different data-store isn't as drastic.
Good luck dude.
Related
We have an Access 2016 database with lots of tables, forms and reports from a client. The client would like other people to access the data in this database but doesn't want to spend the money to convert the forms and reports to a website. They would rather have Access 2016 as a frontend with it's forms and reports and store the data in a centralized location. The issue is the users who will access this data won't be on the same LAN or network.
The solution I came up with was to use SQL Azure as the database backend and keep the forms and reports in the Access 2016 database frontend. Can anyone think of an alternative? Does Microsoft have some kind of online hosting with Office 365? I have nothing at all against SQL Server and use it frequently but just don't want to go through the effort of upsizing the database when a simpler solution existed.
You can certainly place the back end on SQL Azure. However given that a typical internet connection is about 100 times slower, then MUCH effort is required to optimize the application. So you need significant experience on how to optimize an Access application to work with SQL server. This setup is thus doable, but will take significant amounts of work to achieve decent performance.
Another possible solution is to use a SharePoint or office 365 back end (which supports SharePoint tables). This setup only works well if table’s sizes are in general below 5000 records. You also have to ensure all table relations are standard auto number PK and child tables use a standard long number column to relate back to the parent table.
Likely the best solution is to setup a server and run remote desktop. This gives the best performance, and the end users don’t need to install access nor your front end part.
I explain in detail the “slowness” with using SQL server over the internet in this article of mine along with some suggestions and possible solutions.
http://www.kallal.ca//Wan/Wans.html
At the moment I am using Access & an OleDb connection to store data. I went down this route originally because I though that this was the best way for applications that I am distributing to my clients.
I would prefer to use something like SQL Server but is this a good idea for software I am distributing? Does the average Joe's PC have SQL Server pre-installed? If not, I suppose I can provide them with a link to download it for free?
Is there any better alternatives to Access / SQL Server?
You can use SQL Server CE and bundle the database with your application.
See this How to on MSDN.
You haven't really given enough information to answer this specifically but I'll answer generally:
Does the average Joe's PC have SQL Server pre-installed?
No.
If not, I suppose I can provide them with a link to download it for free?
Yes, Microsoft has fairly generous 'free' versions of SQL server Express for small database sizes (<1GB) and small numbers of CPU's (1). Check here.
Are there any better alternatives to Access / SQL Server?
It depends on your app, your skill and how you define better.
If you are running sql-server you can very easily use linq2sql and have strongly typed data base objects that offer clean vb.net code. The linq technologies are worth learning IMO. The tools in VS2010 work well with sql-server databases. Other more modern Microsoft tools are available too that integrate very easily (entity framework and lightswitch (which I don't have experience with)).
For small local databases sqlite works well. If your project is very small and the sql is simple this is a very light weight solution. This is very small and very fast and is used everywhere.
If a server is needed and low cost matters mysqlis a solid open source server though it is now under private ownership.
Again depending upon your application off-site hosting of a database might be a viable solution. I have a client that is still running their db in the cloud with a low cost 2008 SQL Server provider.
A colleague I work with recently told me that SQL Express and MS Access were essentially the same thing; that does not seem to be an accurate statement. I know you can convert Access to a SQL DB and maybe under the covers they are similar, but I would assume that the SQL DB engine and what is used to run access are not the same. Not only that, but the SQL statement syntax, etc. I know are not the same.
I am mainly trying to understand so that I am more informed about the versions.
Um, no, not the same.
First off, I need to clear up some terminology. MS Access is a Rapid Application Development (RAD) tool that allows you to quickly build forms and reports that are bound to relational data. It comes with a file-based database engine (Jet/ACE).
Access the RAD tool can be used with many different backend databases (Jet, SQL Server, any db that supports ODBC, etc). I have to assume your colleague was specifically commenting on Jet/ACE, ie the database engine that MS Access uses.
I think the single biggest difference between the Jet/ACE database engine and MS SQL Server Express is that Jet/ACE is file-based and SQL Server Express uses a client/server model. This means that SQL Server Express requires a running service to provide access to the datastore. This can complicate deployment in some scenarios.
SQL Server Express is really just a throttled-back version of SQL Server: max database size of 4GB (10GB in 2008R2), only uses a single physical CPU, etc. These limitations are imposed to prevent large organizations from using the freely available Express edition in place of a full-blown SQL Server install. The upshot to this is that SQL Server Express offers a truly seamless upgrade path to SQL Server. It is also (generally speaking) a more robust and fully featured database management system then Jet/ACE.
Similarities
relational database management systems
written by Microsoft
Differences
MS Access
File based
free distributable runtime (2007 or later)
RAD tools (form/report designer)
uses Jet SQL
max file size 2GB
SQL Server Express
Client/Server model
free
no RAD tools
uses Transact-SQL
max database size 4GB (10GB for SSE R2), max one physical CPU
I think what your colleague had in mind was SQL Server CE, which is a super-lightweight embedded database, which is still (IMO) far superior to Access in database-management aspect. SQL Express cannot even be compared with Access without offending the former.
Here are the datasheets for both products so you can see some hard facts on the difference between the two databases.
Access:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/access-help/access-specifications-HP005186808.aspx
SQL (Express is listed on the far right column):
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/editions-compare.aspx
The comment I have always read is that Access is great for single user single access database use, the minute you scale beyond a single user look elsewhere. While that may be a "bit" of a stretch, Access really does not do well in a multi-user environment. From experience we've had a client who has ignored and ignored our requests to migrate a backend database from Access to SQL, and there have been numerous occasions where we have had to restore from backups, or take the Access database offline due to corruption.
They are two completely different technologies with two different target markets. The database engines are indeed different, as you mention T-SQL is different than Access SQL.
You can "scale up" an Access database to SQL by creating an SSIS package or other tool to do the import, but this takes the Access schema and data and migrates it to a true SQL database. It does more than just attach the Access database or the like.
Anytime you need a "real" database I'd highly recommend looking at any of the SQL versions that are available over Access.
Just remember that with MS-Access you don't have size limitations if you play your cards right. There is no reason, for example, not to have many 2 to 4 Gig tables each contained singularly in their own database. Your ODBC applications can open a connection to multiple MS-Access databases and query the single table in each. So you can have a database containing trillions of records, stored in multiple MDB files. One company I went to work for was using a single MS-Access database to run a issue tracking system done in MS-Access forms. They could only use it one person at a time because of sharing issues that would lock MS-Access up. I wrote a Win32 Perl native Windows GUI user-interface to the database that was better at field/record validation, and my ODBC code was able to manage the connection for simultaneous user access. I managed the opening and reading and writing and closing of the database for each user through my Perl program. I did not leave the database open. I did not maintain a persistent connection for each user, but instead only maintained a connection long enough to retrieve a record for edit. Then I closed the connection until it was time to write the record back to the database. Also, I wrote my own record locking program logic by maintaining a user login table that contained the record id of the record a user was currently editing, then erased that entry when no longer editing that record. When another user went to edit the same record, the program checked if that record was currently open for edit by another user. The system worked flawlessly. MS-Access never locked up via ODBC and multi-user access. I even embedded the password to the database in my compiled Perl program so that no one could get to the data in the Access database other than through my Perl program.
I have an old Access application that has a lot of code in forms and reports. The database is getting too large and I am thinking of moving the back end to SQL Server.
My requirements are as follows:
The DB needs to be multiuser and the users (3-5) will need to log in over the web
I would prefer not to re-write the forms and reports in ASP or some other web front end.
When I think about my choices, I see them as:
Have an Access ADP front end and allows remote log-in to the server where it is stored. Not sure if it is possible for 2 users to simultaneously log in
Distribute an ADP front end to the users, but I am not sure if it is possible to connect to a SQL Server back end over the internet, and the network traffic may be an issue.
Any other solution?
I appreciate all help.
u
I would recommend against rewriting as ADP (you do realize, I hope, that you can't convert an MDB to ADP?). ADP has been deprecated by MS for about the last 5 years, and has received no development attention in the last two versions of Access (A2007 and A2010). It may get some attention in the next version of Access, or it may be dropped (as was the case with DAPs after two versions of no changes).
The easiest way to roll out multi-site access to an Access application is with Windows Terminal Server. This is extremely easy to implement and not all that expensive and requires no alterations to your Access application (I assume you'd upsize the back end regardless, of course).
You also might want to familiarize yourself with the fabulous new features of Access 2010 that integrate with Sharepoint Server 2010 and its new Access Services to allow the development of an Access app that runs almost identically in the Access client and in a web browser (via Sharepoint). This would require a major rewrite, of course, but it's also quite scalable.
It's also the future of Access, so far as I can see, and will be getting lots of attention from Microsoft over the next few years.
I work on a clients MDB FE on a VPN/ADSL connection to their server. It's slightly more sluggish in some areas than working in their office. But it does work well. So I see no need to convert the app to ADP format.
Note that they've done a lot of work creating views and stored procedures to greatly improve performance.
There is a tool from the SQL Server group which is better than the built in Upsizing Wizard. SQL Server Migration Assistant for Access (SSMA Access)
Also see my Random Thoughts on SQL Server Upsizing from Microsoft Access Tips page.
The only secure way to expose a sql server back end to and access front end over the internet is over a vpn. Unless you rewrite queries and other sql in the access code to execute queries on the sql server, sql server is probably going to transfer entire tables to the acccess front end forprocessing and filtering which will be slow over a vpn. If you really don't want to have to recode i think rdp acess is going to work best.
ADP is definitely faster over a WAN than linked tables. Linked tables are the least efficient thing in the world. Jet didn't get any new features for 10 years.. Access Data Projects get new features through every release including Access 2000, 2002, 2003, 2007 and 2010. ADP has also gotten new features in 2005 and 2008 with the release of SQL Server. ADP has gotten new features with every release, it is NOT depecrated, it is fully supported. There are specific hotfixes released for ADP just like there are for Jet.
There are actually two related questions:
is it possible or advisable to use a full blown stand-alone SQL server for SharePoint Services WSS3.0 instead of the supplied windows internal database it comes with? The client I am working for is asking to utilize their existent SQL server for all WSS content databases to possibly minimize admin effort and improve performance.
As well, would you advise to install WSS on one physical server and the content database on another server? Any gain in performace? Practicality? ect. The default is WSS and all of its databases are installed on the same single server. We don't really need a farm setup of MOSS, because the WSS capabilities are enough for our needs.
Thanks,
Val
Yes, when you create the site check the installation to be a "Web Front End" It will then prompt you to select a location for the SQL database. Just point it to which server you want.
I would definitely recommend putting it on a non-Sql Express instance. The express version only scales to 4 gig, limits the maximum number of connections etc. If your client is going to do much with it at all, you will eventually hit that limit. Full blown sql server has other advantages too, like help with backups etc.
Yes and yes.
Keeping the SQL and WSS servers separate saves resources on both, and neither are light weight applications. It also allows you to easily begin clustered/distributed environment in the event your usage increases, as well as following a least privledge principle, keeping product patches separate, etc.
As an addendum, you say you don't need a MOSS farm because WSS fits your needs, but be aware that it's just as easy to setup a distributed WSS environment as is MOSS; MOSS only adds capabilities to the application. It's usually a good idea to have at least two WFE's in the farm, if for nothing else than redundancy in case of failure.
Yes you can use a 'full blown' SQL Server instead of the the free and limited SQL Server Express that is delivered with Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 (wss 3.0)
It's even better to separate the database and the actual website! More scalable (if you upgrade to MOSS), easier to manage and less security risks.