I have been working on VB6 database desktop programming, but now a client is asking for a
simple web interface (some inserts into SQL Server db used by a desktop application).
The question is: Which approach is better?
1)creating asp.net project, connected directly to the SQL Server database;
2)creating separate (simple) mysql database managed by php and synchronization (in 15 minutes for example)
Thanks.
Personally since you already have the SQL Server database, I see no reason whatsoever to add the complexity of another database and then synchonization. The first alternative is simpler to create and can be secure if you design it correctly. The issue about hosting is irrelevant since you are going to your own database that already exists, so is the issue about cost since the databse is already there. Further since you are already supporting SQL Server, you may be able to reuse some code rather than write new code (mysql's version of SQL is not the same as SQl Server's version). Synching the two databases may be more complex than you think (differnt data types, etc.) and the data in the real database is not real-time whereas with the first alternative it is.
I'd prefer the separate database approach.
It's more secure.
PHP/Mysql hosting is widespread
You can pretty much achieve anything with the technologies available, it just depends on your skill and productivity with specific technologies and the availability of online help. Plus Microsoft stuff you tend to have to pay for whereas PHP/MySQL is totally free.
Related
Does it matter which Database you decide to use in your VB.net program? If someone could give me a Pros and Cons of maybe performance/ simplicity/ potential that would be great. I know Access fairly well, but if SQL is better I would like to switch over.
Yes it matters. If you are talking about a real system you should use SQL Server without even considering access as an alternative.
MS access is a light database management system oriented to amateurs. It lacks many of the administration tools needed on a real system. Of course, it is a lot easier to setup and learn.
SQL Server is a relational database management system providing professional tools. SQL Server Management Studio is the default graphical tool on which you can administer your SQL Server instance.
Regarding performance SQL Server is definetely better. Regarding simplicity Access is a lot easier to learn. Regarding potential I suppose the SQL server certainly is better.
Perhaps this post could clarify things for you...
Hope I helped!
It depends upon your program bro.
let me start with MS ACCESS, MS Access is actually a combination of a rapid development UI tool and file system based relational database (JET). Access is intended for end users. it does not cater multiple users. however, it is easy to deploy and much cheaper especially for small installations.
on the other hand, MS SQL SERVER is a Client-server relational database system, with no UI development tools built in. It is also designed to support more users a lot easier to maintain because of its tools provided. Compared to MS ACCESS, it is more complex and has No built-in UI development tools - You will need another dev platform to build a front-end and (arguably) reporting. In my case, i usually implement Crystal reports as my reporting tool....
In conclusion. It is really your choice on what database you are going to use....if its just a simple application, better use MS ACCESS... but if you are creating an application that caters client server interaction, better use MS SQL SERVER...
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.
Is there seriously no way of using a shared access non-server driven database file format without having to use an SQL Server? The Entity Framework is great, and it's not until I've completely finished designing my database model, getting SQL Server Compact Edition 4.0 to work with Visual Studio that I find out that it basically cannot be run off a network drive and be used by multiple users. I appreciate I should have done some research!
The only other way as far as I can tell is to have to set up an SQL server, something which I doubt I would be able to do. I'm searching for possible ways to use it with Access databases (which can be shared on a network drive) but this seems either difficult or impossible.
Would I have to go back to typed DataSets or even manually coding the SQL code?
Another alternative is to try using SQL
Install SQL Server express. Access is not supported by EF at all and my experience with file based databases (Access, SQL Server CE) is mostly:
If you need some very small mostly readonly data to persist in database you can use them (good for code tables but in the same time such data can be simply stored in XML).
If you expect some concurrent traffic and often writing into DB + larger data sets their performance and usability drops quickly. They are mostly useful for local storage for single user.
I'm not sure how this relates for example to SQLite. To generate database from model for SQLite you need special T4 template (using correct SQL syntax).
Have you tried SQLite? It has a SQL provider, and as far as I know EF supports any provider. Since it's file-based, that might be a plausible solution. It's also free.
We don't need multiuser. Just relational. Our app currently uses Access but Access isn't exactly zero-administration because it's prone to corruption.
Is SQLite rock, rock solid, pure zero-administration?
Or...is there a way to configure SQL Server as a desktop engine so that it is pure zero admin?
Or...is there some other relational choice?
We are using ADO as the layer to talk to Access, so switching to SQL Server wouldn't be hard, but my understanding is that I couldn't use ADO for SQLite, so switching to SQLite would require a lot of rewriting. Is that right?
Other databases may be more stable than Access, but I'm not aware of anything that's as easy to use, and as easy for an end user to understand. Access (like SourceSafe) is always called "prone to corruption", but few and far between are the first-hand accounts of this. Most people "read it somewhere."
Consider just including a backup routine with your app that keeps the last two or three copies of the Access database if you're that worried about corruption.
If you insist on something else, then try SQL Server Compact Edition (as other have suggested), which (like Access) is just a file, a .sdf file in this case, and a few DLLs. Unlike SQL Server Express Edition, SQL Server CE doesn't leave a background process running all the time.
Another option is embedded Firebird.
The most easy switch would be to go with SQL Server compact edition, it can be embedded in your app, and from some light testing that I have done, it works really well.
Going to SQL lite will require more modification of the DAL.
NOW note that SQL Compact Edition doesn't support stored procedures! (Shouldn't be a big deal, but be sure to research the differences)
There are ADO.NET wrappers for SQLite, not sure if that is what you want or just straight ADO. I have found SQLite to be very robust although you do need to VACUUM the database every now and then to recover unused space after deletions. You can do that from your code, so that isn't really administration. I just do it at startup or shutdown.
I agree with the others' opinions about SQL Express Edition. I use it for several apps.
If you are working with .NET, then you might want to look at Subsonic for your data access. It supports all of the above and more and makes switching fairly painless. For single user database apps, it is great. If you are going to do a rewrite, then it is worth it.
Since you are looking at no need for multiuser, you might want to check out SQL Server Compact Edition. http://www.microsoft.com/Sqlserver/2005/en/us/compact.aspx
I'm looking for a desktop/embedded database. The two candidates I'm looking at are
Microsoft SQL Server CE and Oracle Lite. If anyone's used both of these products, it'd be great if you could compare them. I haven't been able to find any comparisons online.
The backend DB is Oracle10g.
Update: Clarification, the business need is a client-server app with offline functionality (hence the need for a local data store on the client)
If the backend database is Oracle 10g it will probably be easier for you to use Oracle Lite - that way you don't have to use two completely different SQL dialects in the same project.
BTW, In my product I use SQLite as the desktop database
I'll second the vote for SQLite. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish but if you're doing any sort of local storage with syncing SQLite is a good choice. It has very widespread adoption and a lot of community support.
I also used SQLite as a desktop database. It's lightning quick and doesn't need a seperate process or any prior installation. All you need is a library to access the data as part of your code.
In light of your clarification I'd evaluate both OracleXE and Oracle 10g Lite before the others. Stick with the same tech, SQL/Oracle have some funny disagreements about SQL syntax and datatypes. I imagine you'd get the same issue with SQLite.
Perhaps I'm not fully understanding the need here. You are developing against 10g, but for your own test/dev environment you want a more lightweight database?
Or, are you developing an application that synchs with 10g database when online, but when offline uses a local store?
In both cases, I'd recommend staying with Oracle only because it will simplify your code.
In the first case, I'd wonder why you don't have a 10g QA machine somewhere that all the developers can connect to.
One advantage you have with SQL Server CE is that it is free and you can use the Sync Framework to syncronize it with any ADO.NET accesible database.
Also, the same SQL CE file is usable from the PC and mobile devices, and if you develop your application using .NET, you can use the same code for the desktop and the mobile device without changes.
You might want to look at Oracle XE. I cannot remember all of the differences, but O-Lite didn't fit my project needs. Oracle XE is a very good database for local development.
Brad
As #Nir mentioned, it's better to have homogeneous environment. However if you decide to not use Oracle Light, I would highly recommend you to take a look at Firebird. It's one of best choices for desktop database scenarios.