| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
chatbugs.com 
Newbie
Joined: 10 February 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 17
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Posted: 11 February 2003 at 12:03am |
|
Access can handle many transactions PER MINUTE... SQL however, as long as the server is robust enough, can handle HUNDREDS to THOUSANDS per MINUTE. Its all about volume; not to mention stability.
|
 |
doublelfan
Mod Builder Group
Joined: 14 May 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 316
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 February 2003 at 1:12am |
|
The issue is in live hits. If you have too many visitors accessing the db at once you'll run into major problems using access--access was not built for handling heavy loads.
SQL is faster, but we're talking milliseconds here. So if you get few visitors accesing the db at once then don't spend the $ on an sql server. But if you have a lot of traffic, you'll be doing yourself a favor by getting sql.
|
Free Computer Help 24-7
|
|
Bunce
Senior Member
Joined: 10 April 2002
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 846
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 February 2003 at 1:22am |
'Vistors' don't 'access' the database.
They make page requests to the web-server. The web-server then creates connections to the database (server), and depending on the coding techniques, uses a pool of connections to the data source.
Now the capability of the web-server and database-server, along with the types of transactions, coding techniques, database structure, indexes and yes, amount of traffic in total, can affect the performance of your site.
However the hits is not always the detrimental factor.
And SQL SERVER, depending on its request *can* be a LOT faster than Access. It all depends on what is requested of it..
Cheers,
Andrew
|
|
There have been many, many posts made throughout the world...
This was one of them.
|
|
doublelfan
Mod Builder Group
Joined: 14 May 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 316
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 February 2003 at 1:44am |
|
OMG, lol!
Take a chill pill...I realize it isn't some cartoon--people don't run up to the database and knock on the door and ask for info. The question wasn't: explain to me the innerworkings and process of a database and how information is called, it was which db is better. And the answer is simple and my point remains valid. SQL is better for heavy traffic sites and access is more than satisfactory for those who aren't so heavily traveled. Access was not built to handle heavy loads. fin.
|
Free Computer Help 24-7
|
|
Bunce
Senior Member
Joined: 10 April 2002
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 846
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 February 2003 at 4:57am |
Relax.
My point is that it annoys me that people make these overarching comments about Access who really don't understand the inner workings of how a client-server applications work.
They've read in some other post or on some other forum that 'Access is slow, SQL Server is fast' and believe its the final word on the matter.
Fact is that there are few forums run by those who frequent this message board, that suffer in performance simply because they are using Access. It will be partly due to overpopulated shared hosting services with poor internal bandwidth, server resources, or inadequate website coding.
YES, SQL SERVER IS FASTER, but a very small percentage of people realise or utilise its features or power and gain very little from upgrading a previous Access database. And if they do, its usually not only due to ACCESS BEING SLOW!
Edited by Bunce
|
|
There have been many, many posts made throughout the world...
This was one of them.
|
|
PsYcHoCoP
Groupie
Joined: 13 May 2002
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 105
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 February 2003 at 5:02am |
Well i read all these reply, and i can see with my currently forum running at 2 places with access there is no need to upgrade to MySQL.
one place i got 220 members with about 2-3 post MAX daily
second is much less, but will grow, but still no need for it i guess.
btw. im running my own registered w2k server, so its not a big problem getting MySQL installed or is it different tom???
Hope Not 
|
The spelling mistakes has been inserted automatically of consideration to the people who find a great pleasure to search for it 
|
|
PsYcHoCoP
Groupie
Joined: 13 May 2002
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 105
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 February 2003 at 5:05am |
Forget it, i found in another post its different, so i keep my access version LOL 
|
The spelling mistakes has been inserted automatically of consideration to the people who find a great pleasure to search for it
|
|
Bunce
Senior Member
Joined: 10 April 2002
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 846
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 February 2003 at 5:09am |
|
(BTW, Yes you can install MySQL on Win2K Server. You will also need to use the MyODBC Driver available from www.mysql.com)
|
|
There have been many, many posts made throughout the world...
This was one of them.
|
|
