|
|
You're in the
dotnet ado.net
group:Why choose SQL Express over Access?
dotnet ado.net:
to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked. And, since your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify for your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question. So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them. 1) It's free. 2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server.
[quoted text, click to view]
ljh wrote: > I can't find anything on SQL Anywhere - even on the Sybase site. > > The closest I can get is a SQL Anywhere link that actually shows you > something called "Remoteware" (whatever the hell that is) - > http://www.sybase.com/products/mobilesolutions/sqlanywhere . Yeah, they change product names every 5 minutes, which is why they'll never amount to anything. However, I used the product a couple of years ago and it is solid. It has all the drivers and easy of use and surprising performance and all that. [quoted text, click to view] > I don't really trust Borland anyway. They jumped right in line with the I don't think Sybase has anything to do with Borland. You got your vendors confused. [quoted text, click to view] > whole .Net mantra - when they had a better way of doing things and they have
> abandoned Kylix without ever admitting to doing so. > > They do enough to keep the Borland name alive....but that seems to be about > it. > > "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:uARMMlChGHA.1508@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Short incomplete list of reasons - >> >> - SQL Express (or SQL Server in general) will scale better to multiple >> users. >> - It will give you a "way out" when your DB exceeds 4GB >> - It will be easier to maintain from a DBA point of view (centralized >> backups *.*) >> - It will give you a much richer feature set - notification, SQLCLR, >> better T-SQL*.* >> - It will give you better performance (No OleDb necessary) >> - You won't have to compact it as often >> - Better support for data types/indexes etc. etc. >> - Other reasons. >> >> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And >> frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these >> name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications >> anyway. >> >> - Sahil Malik >> http://www.winsmarts.com >> >> >> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message >> news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >>> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application >>> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no >>> dependencies? >>> >>> >>> >> >
[quoted text, click to view]
Sahil Malik [MVP C#] wrote: > The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And frankly > SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these name > changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications anyway. There is one more Access advantage: it'll run on Windows XP Home Edition, while SQL Express will not (requires XP Pro). So if you are targeting mom&pop shops or the home market, either do Access or stick to MSDE.
Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application to
work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no dependencies?
Short incomplete list of reasons -
- SQL Express (or SQL Server in general) will scale better to multiple users. - It will give you a "way out" when your DB exceeds 4GB - It will be easier to maintain from a DBA point of view (centralized backups *.*) - It will give you a much richer feature set - notification, SQLCLR, better T-SQL*.* - It will give you better performance (No OleDb necessary) - You won't have to compact it as often - Better support for data types/indexes etc. etc. - Other reasons. The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications anyway. - Sahil Malik http://www.winsmarts.com [quoted text, click to view] "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application > to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no > dependencies? > > >
If you really are looking for a lightweight, fast, no - deployment database
then why not look into SQLite? There's an ADO.NET and an ADO.NET 2.0 provider (thanks to Robert Simpson) and it screams compared to MS Access. Not even an MDAC dependency. Peter -- Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal: http://www.eggheadcafe.com UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com [quoted text, click to view] "ljh" wrote:
> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application to > work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no dependencies? > > >
I mean that you can use Access databases simply by including the .mdb files
with your application, whereas using SQL Server Express requires that you install SQL Server Express and have it running in the backgound. In the event that I use SQL Server Express and need to redistribute it with my app, is there a silent install available? [quoted text, click to view] <james.curran@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1149020977.932902.220830@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires an installed application > to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked. And, since > your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify for > your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question. > > So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them. > 1) It's free. > 2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server. >
I can't find anything on SQL Anywhere - even on the Sybase site.
The closest I can get is a SQL Anywhere link that actually shows you something called "Remoteware" (whatever the hell that is) - http://www.sybase.com/products/mobilesolutions/sqlanywhere . I don't really trust Borland anyway. They jumped right in line with the whole .Net mantra - when they had a better way of doing things and they have abandoned Kylix without ever admitting to doing so. They do enough to keep the Borland name alive....but that seems to be about it. [quoted text, click to view] "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uARMMlChGHA.1508@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Short incomplete list of reasons - > > - SQL Express (or SQL Server in general) will scale better to multiple > users. > - It will give you a "way out" when your DB exceeds 4GB > - It will be easier to maintain from a DBA point of view (centralized > backups *.*) > - It will give you a much richer feature set - notification, SQLCLR, > better T-SQL*.* > - It will give you better performance (No OleDb necessary) > - You won't have to compact it as often > - Better support for data types/indexes etc. etc. > - Other reasons. > > The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And > frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these > name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications > anyway. > > - Sahil Malik > http://www.winsmarts.com > > > "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message > news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application >> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no >> dependencies? >> >> >> > >
Another option for you may be SQL Everywhere. I think will be released this
summer. 1.4mb with 7 dlls. http://blogs.msdn.com/stevelasker/archive/2006/04/10/SqlEverywhereInfo.aspx -- William Stacey [MVP] [quoted text, click to view] "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message |I mean that you can use Access databases simply by including the .mdb filesnews:Dm2fg.66188$MM6.13884@bignews3.bellsouth.net... | with your application, whereas using SQL Server Express requires that you | install SQL Server Express and have it running in the backgound. | | In the event that I use SQL Server Express and need to redistribute it with | my app, is there a silent install available? | [quoted text, click to view] | <james.curran@gmail.com> wrote in message | > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires an installed application| news:1149020977.932902.220830@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... | > to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked. And, since | > your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify for | > your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question. | > | > So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them. | > 1) It's free. | > 2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server. | > | |
It is Sql Everywhere. Check out the faq in the linq I gave above. For the
most part, it is Sql Mobile with a license change that will run anywhere (XP, etc). -- William Stacey [MVP] [quoted text, click to view] "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message |I can't find anything on SQL Anywhere - even on the Sybase site.news:7t2fg.66189$MM6.15646@bignews3.bellsouth.net... | | The closest I can get is a SQL Anywhere link that actually shows you | something called "Remoteware" (whatever the hell that is) - | http://www.sybase.com/products/mobilesolutions/sqlanywhere . | | I don't really trust Borland anyway. They jumped right in line with the | whole .Net mantra - when they had a better way of doing things and they have | abandoned Kylix without ever admitting to doing so. | | They do enough to keep the Borland name alive....but that seems to be about | it. | [quoted text, click to view] | "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message | > Short incomplete list of reasons -| news:uARMMlChGHA.1508@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... | > | > - SQL Express (or SQL Server in general) will scale better to multiple | > users. | > - It will give you a "way out" when your DB exceeds 4GB | > - It will be easier to maintain from a DBA point of view (centralized | > backups *.*) | > - It will give you a much richer feature set - notification, SQLCLR, | > better T-SQL*.* | > - It will give you better performance (No OleDb necessary) | > - You won't have to compact it as often | > - Better support for data types/indexes etc. etc. | > - Other reasons. | > | > The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And | > frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these | > name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications | > anyway. | > | > - Sahil Malik | > http://www.winsmarts.com | > | > [quoted text, click to view] | > "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message | >> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed | > news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net... application | >> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no | >> dependencies? | >> | >> | >> | > | > | |
I have a company that runs several (6 - 10) small stores that does the
rent-to-own thing. The software they have now is generic and the service sucks. They want a personalized solution for thier rather unique product line. Thing is......they want all stores to share information (real-time of course), they want information stored locally in case there is an internet outgae, and they don't want to buy a SQL Server license for every store. So.....I need to come up with a free way to have shared, locally replicated data at each store. Theoretically it is pretty simple. Practically, its a pain in the ass. [quoted text, click to view] "John B" <jbngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:447ccdf6_1@news.iprimus.com.au... > ljh wrote: >> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application >> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no >> dependencies? >> >> >> > Sql Express is a lot more performant and scaleable than access. > If you get a db size over 1/2 GB or so in access you will probably run > into trouble with corruptions etc. > If you eventually need to upgrade to full Sql Server then its a straight > backup / restore operation of the database and you are up and running. > If you only need and will only ever need a very simple db mechanism then > access might be the way to go. > > JB
Awesome!
It doesn't look like they'll let us use it to power webservices under IIS though. That would suck. Allowing its use under IIS would make hosted web development so much easier! It would let small companies with big ideas give those ideas a shot at succeeding without spending several thousand dollars for SQL Server. But, I don't think MS is all that interested in helping small businesses grow. And, that's too bad. Doing so would actually fatten the bottom line at MS as the little businesses need more MS licenses and maybe a "grown up" version of SQL Server. If they did, who knows, it might even unseat MySQL as the web db king. Thanks for the great link! [quoted text, click to view] "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message news:Odp%23lzDhGHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Another option for you may be SQL Everywhere. I think will be released > this > summer. 1.4mb with 7 dlls. > http://blogs.msdn.com/stevelasker/archive/2006/04/10/SqlEverywhereInfo.aspx > > -- > William Stacey [MVP] > > "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message > news:Dm2fg.66188$MM6.13884@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > |I mean that you can use Access databases simply by including the .mdb > files > | with your application, whereas using SQL Server Express requires that > you > | install SQL Server Express and have it running in the backgound. > | > | In the event that I use SQL Server Express and need to redistribute it > with > | my app, is there a silent install available? > | > | <james.curran@gmail.com> wrote in message > | news:1149020977.932902.220830@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... > | > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires an installed application > | > to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked. And, > since > | > your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify for > | > your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question. > | > > | > So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them. > | > 1) It's free. > | > 2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server. > | > > | > | > >
You're right..... I got Sybase and Borland mixed up. Must've been that
whole JBuilder collaboration thing that threw me. They are definitely not the same company. [quoted text, click to view] "Frank Rizzo" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:%23rBSlsDhGHA.4284@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > ljh wrote: >> I can't find anything on SQL Anywhere - even on the Sybase site. >> >> The closest I can get is a SQL Anywhere link that actually shows you >> something called "Remoteware" (whatever the hell that is) - >> http://www.sybase.com/products/mobilesolutions/sqlanywhere . > > Yeah, they change product names every 5 minutes, which is why they'll > never amount to anything. However, I used the product a couple of years > ago and it is solid. It has all the drivers and easy of use and > surprising performance and all that. > >> I don't really trust Borland anyway. They jumped right in line with the > I don't think Sybase has anything to do with Borland. You got your > vendors confused. > > >> whole .Net mantra - when they had a better way of doing things and they >> have abandoned Kylix without ever admitting to doing so. >> >> They do enough to keep the Borland name alive....but that seems to be >> about it. >> >> "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:uARMMlChGHA.1508@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> Short incomplete list of reasons - >>> >>> - SQL Express (or SQL Server in general) will scale better to multiple >>> users. >>> - It will give you a "way out" when your DB exceeds 4GB >>> - It will be easier to maintain from a DBA point of view (centralized >>> backups *.*) >>> - It will give you a much richer feature set - notification, SQLCLR, >>> better T-SQL*.* >>> - It will give you better performance (No OleDb necessary) >>> - You won't have to compact it as often >>> - Better support for data types/indexes etc. etc. >>> - Other reasons. >>> >>> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And >>> frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these >>> name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications >>> anyway. >>> >>> - Sahil Malik >>> http://www.winsmarts.com >>> >>> >>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message >>> news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >>>> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed >>>> application to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which >>>> has no dependencies? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
I'm trying it out. But, I can't even get it to create an empty db so that
I can use the VS.Net 2005 tools to create the tables, columns, etc. I type "sqlite3 test.db" at the C:\ prompt (where I have a copy of sqlite3.exe. Then, I type ".exit" and look for the empyt db....but there is nothing there. Any suggestions? [quoted text, click to view] "Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <pbromberg@yahoo.nospammin.com> wrote in message news:EAA36952-A294-48B8-9AC0-698C8852E184@microsoft.com... > If you really are looking for a lightweight, fast, no - deployment > database > then why not look into SQLite? There's an ADO.NET and an ADO.NET 2.0 > provider > (thanks to Robert Simpson) and it screams compared to MS Access. Not even > an > MDAC dependency. > Peter > > -- > Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal: > http://www.eggheadcafe.com > UnBlog: > http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com > > > > > "ljh" wrote: > >> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application >> to >> work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no >> dependencies? >> >> >> >>
Yup thats it .. SQL Everywhere.
SM :) [quoted text, click to view] "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message news:%23RVmO%23DhGHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > It is Sql Everywhere. Check out the faq in the linq I gave above. For > the > most part, it is Sql Mobile with a license change that will run anywhere > (XP, etc). > > -- > William Stacey [MVP] > > "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message > news:7t2fg.66189$MM6.15646@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > |I can't find anything on SQL Anywhere - even on the Sybase site. > | > | The closest I can get is a SQL Anywhere link that actually shows you > | something called "Remoteware" (whatever the hell that is) - > | http://www.sybase.com/products/mobilesolutions/sqlanywhere . > | > | I don't really trust Borland anyway. They jumped right in line with the > | whole .Net mantra - when they had a better way of doing things and they > have > | abandoned Kylix without ever admitting to doing so. > | > | They do enough to keep the Borland name alive....but that seems to be > about > | it. > | > | "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message > | news:uARMMlChGHA.1508@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > | > Short incomplete list of reasons - > | > > | > - SQL Express (or SQL Server in general) will scale better to multiple > | > users. > | > - It will give you a "way out" when your DB exceeds 4GB > | > - It will be easier to maintain from a DBA point of view (centralized > | > backups *.*) > | > - It will give you a much richer feature set - notification, SQLCLR, > | > better T-SQL*.* > | > - It will give you better performance (No OleDb necessary) > | > - You won't have to compact it as often > | > - Better support for data types/indexes etc. etc. > | > - Other reasons. > | > > | > The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And > | > frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all > these > | > name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications > | > anyway. > | > > | > - Sahil Malik > | > http://www.winsmarts.com > | > > | > > | > "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message > | > news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > | >> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed > application > | >> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no > | >> dependencies? > | >> > | >> > | >> > | > > | > > | > | > >
AHA .. good one !!
- Sahil Malik http://www.winsmarts.com http://blah.winsmarts.com [quoted text, click to view] "Frank Rizzo" <none@none.com> wrote in message news:%23j9fctDhGHA.4284@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Sahil Malik [MVP C#] wrote: >> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And >> frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these >> name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications >> anyway. > > There is one more Access advantage: it'll run on Windows XP Home Edition, > while SQL Express will not (requires XP Pro). So if you are targeting > mom&pop shops or the home market, either do Access or stick to MSDE. > > Regards
Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking compatability
with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking". Sounds all fluffy and sweet....but what it means is that you won't be able to use SQL\e to easily deploy webservices (actually you can;t use it to deploy them at all - easy or not). This goes right along with my experience with every single MS product I have ever purchased. Thier slogan should be "When you need it *almost* right." Oh well.....I'm still looking into the free SQLite. It has an add-in for VS.Net 2005 support and is not limited to 4GB of data. Oh yeah...it's only one file (no dependencies) and it's completely free. I'll let you know how my testing with it goes. [quoted text, click to view] "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message news:%23YpMqGFhGHA.5104@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Yup thats it .. SQL Everywhere. > > SM :) > > > "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:%23RVmO%23DhGHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> It is Sql Everywhere. Check out the faq in the linq I gave above. For >> the >> most part, it is Sql Mobile with a license change that will run anywhere >> (XP, etc). >> >> -- >> William Stacey [MVP] >> >> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message >> news:7t2fg.66189$MM6.15646@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >> |I can't find anything on SQL Anywhere - even on the Sybase site. >> | >> | The closest I can get is a SQL Anywhere link that actually shows you >> | something called "Remoteware" (whatever the hell that is) - >> | http://www.sybase.com/products/mobilesolutions/sqlanywhere . >> | >> | I don't really trust Borland anyway. They jumped right in line with >> the >> | whole .Net mantra - when they had a better way of doing things and they >> have >> | abandoned Kylix without ever admitting to doing so. >> | >> | They do enough to keep the Borland name alive....but that seems to be >> about >> | it. >> | >> | "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in >> message >> | news:uARMMlChGHA.1508@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> | > Short incomplete list of reasons - >> | > >> | > - SQL Express (or SQL Server in general) will scale better to >> multiple >> | > users. >> | > - It will give you a "way out" when your DB exceeds 4GB >> | > - It will be easier to maintain from a DBA point of view (centralized >> | > backups *.*) >> | > - It will give you a much richer feature set - notification, SQLCLR, >> | > better T-SQL*.* >> | > - It will give you better performance (No OleDb necessary) >> | > - You won't have to compact it as often >> | > - Better support for data types/indexes etc. etc. >> | > - Other reasons. >> | > >> | > The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And >> | > frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all >> these >> | > name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications >> | > anyway. >> | > >> | > - Sahil Malik >> | > http://www.winsmarts.com >> | > >> | > >> | > "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message >> | > news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >> | >> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed >> application >> | >> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no >> | >> dependencies? >> | >> >> | >> >> | >> >> | > >> | > >> | >> | >> >> > >
| It doesn't look like they'll let us use it to power webservices under IIS
| though. Couldn't you use SQL Express for that?
| Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking compatability
| with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking". Not sure how they would do that other then via license. I mean a sql query is not going to look any different coming from asp.net page or from your own host? | Sounds all fluffy and sweet....but what it means is that you won't be able | to use SQL\e to easily deploy webservices (actually you can;t use it to | deploy them at all - easy or not). Again, I think you should at least be able to use SQL Express and it is free. IMHO, that product is a sweet and generous gift from MS. -- wjs
Yep....but that defeats the whole ease-of-use thing that a no-install
solution like SQLite or SQL\e provides. Especially when you have a hosted web-app.....SQL\e would be perfect for that. Nothing to "install" (i.e. register) on the hosts servers. It's just that MS wants you to pay to do a decent web-app. IMHO, it helps them control competition somewhat (at least from the little guys) to thier web-centric offerings. What other reasons could thier be to specifically disable it under any IIS process? Greed? As far as I can see....if you're small and have a great idea, MS SQL is probably NOT the thing to use (at least SQLite is easier to deploy and has greater capacity than SQL\e or SQL\x). [quoted text, click to view] "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message news:uycu0lFhGHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >| It doesn't look like they'll let us use it to power webservices under IIS > | though. > > Couldn't you use SQL Express for that? > >
[quoted text, click to view] "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message news:eE$gLoFhGHA.3924@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >| Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking compatability > | with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking". > > Not sure how they would do that other then via license. I mean a sql > query > is not going to look any different coming from asp.net page or from your > own > host? Not sure.....that's the word I got back from Steve Lasker when I emailed him earlier today. [quoted text, click to view] > > | Sounds all fluffy and sweet....but what it means is that you won't be > able > | to use SQL\e to easily deploy webservices (actually you can;t use it to > | deploy them at all - easy or not). > > Again, I think you should at least be able to use SQL Express and it is > free. IMHO, that product is a sweet and generous gift from MS. It is....for machines where you can install anything you want. For ASP.Net hosted webservers, it sucks.
Ah SQL Express can be used with an IIS web site. SQL Everywhere cannot. It's
not designed to do so but SQL Express (still free) is. Microsoft has done more for small business than any company I know. It now offers three versions of its database technology for free. SQL Everywhere, SQL Express and SQL Express Advanced Services that includes the Reporting Services engine as well as Full Text Search. If you just want to bash Microsoft, find some other forum. -- ____________________________________ William (Bill) Vaughn Author, Mentor, Consultant Microsoft MVP INETA Speaker www.betav.com/blog/billva www.betav.com Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. __________________________________ [quoted text, click to view] "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message news:_J4fg.66487$MM6.19820@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > Awesome! > > It doesn't look like they'll let us use it to power webservices under IIS > though. > > That would suck. Allowing its use under IIS would make hosted web > development so much easier! > > It would let small companies with big ideas give those ideas a shot at > succeeding without spending several thousand dollars for SQL Server. > > But, I don't think MS is all that interested in helping small businesses > grow. And, that's too bad. Doing so would actually fatten the bottom > line at MS as the little businesses need more MS licenses and maybe a > "grown up" version of SQL Server. > > If they did, who knows, it might even unseat MySQL as the web db king. > > Thanks for the great link! > > > > "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:Odp%23lzDhGHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Another option for you may be SQL Everywhere. I think will be released >> this >> summer. 1.4mb with 7 dlls. >> http://blogs.msdn.com/stevelasker/archive/2006/04/10/SqlEverywhereInfo.aspx >> >> -- >> William Stacey [MVP] >> >> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message >> news:Dm2fg.66188$MM6.13884@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >> |I mean that you can use Access databases simply by including the .mdb >> files >> | with your application, whereas using SQL Server Express requires that >> you >> | install SQL Server Express and have it running in the backgound. >> | >> | In the event that I use SQL Server Express and need to redistribute it >> with >> | my app, is there a silent install available? >> | >> | <james.curran@gmail.com> wrote in message >> | news:1149020977.932902.220830@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... >> | > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires an installed >> application >> | > to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked. And, >> since >> | > your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify for >> | > your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question. >> | > >> | > So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them. >> | > 1) It's free. >> | > 2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server. >> | > >> | >> | >> >> > >
Ljh,
[quoted text, click to view] > Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application > to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no > dependencies? > I see not much reasons why you cannot use better the Jet Engine over SQL Express, if you want: That every user can remove the database file at any time he wants That your data is processed relatively slow That you cannot use it as an InterNet database withouth webservice or other webpart To tell the path at deployment time Create extra program parts for as the user wants to relocate his database Not much security of the data. To deploy an empty database (wich is great if a user reinstalls and overwrites his exising database) Just my thought, Cor
[quoted text, click to view]
ljh wrote: Sql Express is a lot more performant and scaleable than access.> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application to > work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no dependencies? > > > If you get a db size over 1/2 GB or so in access you will probably run into trouble with corruptions etc. If you eventually need to upgrade to full Sql Server then its a straight backup / restore operation of the database and you are up and running. If you only need and will only ever need a very simple db mechanism then access might be the way to go.
[quoted text, click to view]
ljh wrote: > I'm trying it out. But, I can't even get it to create an empty db so that > I can use the VS.Net 2005 tools to create the tables, columns, etc. > > I type "sqlite3 test.db" at the C:\ prompt (where I have a copy of > sqlite3.exe. Then, I type ".exit" and look for the empyt db....but there is > nothing there. > > Any suggestions? Just use the example C# code on the site: http://adodotnetsqlite.sourceforge.net/ Click on "Documentation & Examples" and then click on "C# SourceCode Example". I just copied-n-pasted the code into a Console App project and ran it and the DB was created for me. The DB is created in the same folder as your compiled exe. So if you do a debug build look in the Debug folder. Sqlite is very nice, very fast, and supports most of SQL92, databases up to 2 terabytes, BLOBs and a lot more all either a 250KB dll or the reduced featur 150KB dll. Best of all is that it is Open Source. No restrictions on usage. SQL Server is great for a full DB. However, for anything less, MS just doesn't have a good offering IMO. I don't want to deal with proprietary restrictions on where/how I can include a database file with my app. Give Sqlite a shot, I think you will be pretty happy with it. The steps to do a quick test console app: Download Sqlite. Get version 3 without the TCL bindings: http://www.sqlite.org/download.html Download the ADO.Net data provider named Finisar.SQLite. Note, this comes with a dll version of sqlite, however I use the version from the official site listed above. http://adodotnetsqlite.sourceforge.net/ Copy the sqlite dll to your system path, C:\windows or c:\windows\system32. Create a new C# Console Application. Add a reference to the SQLite.Net dll that you downloaded. Now you can copy-n-paste the example code in your Main() method from here: http://adodotnetsqlite.sourceforge.net/documentation/csharp_example.php Happy hacking! Jim -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= There's no place like 127.0.0.1 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= JimD
[quoted text, click to view]
JimD wrote: <snip> I forgot to mention about the connection string in the example. The connection string is: Data Source=database.db;Version=3;New=True;Compress=True; The New=True token says to create a new database. So every time you run the test program, you are creating a new database, overwriting the old. You probably don't want to do that with a real application. So you would only use the New=True in a connection string when you want to create a database for the first time. After that, you can either remove New=True or change it to New=False. Jim -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= There's no place like 127.0.0.1 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= JimD
I was looking at the site () and came across "Version 1.0.14 of the SQLite
..Net Data Provider for ADO.NET 2.0/VS 2005 is out and includes design-time support. You can now create databases, design queries, and drag-and-drop tables to create typed datasets within Visual Studio 2005. " Is this capability still in there? I didn't see any examples of this. If SQLite is as easy to use as this quote seems to make it (i.e. as easy to use in the ide as SQL Express) we may just have a winner here. [quoted text, click to view] "JimD" <Jim@keeliegirl.dyndns.org> wrote in message news:yu8fg.8864$eQ4.3616@tornado.tampabay.rr.com... > JimD wrote: > > <snip> > > I forgot to mention about the connection string in the example. The > connection string is: > > Data Source=database.db;Version=3;New=True;Compress=True; > > The New=True token says to create a new database. So every time you run > the test program, you are creating a new database, overwriting the old. > You probably don't want to do that with a real application. So you > would only use the New=True in a connection string when you want to > create a database for the first time. After that, you can either remove > New=True or change it to New=False. > > > Jim > -- > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > There's no place like 127.0.0.1 > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > JimD > Central FL, USA, Earth, Sol
oops! forgot the link to the page where I saw the quote......
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=489095 [quoted text, click to view] "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message news:7e9fg.67012$MM6.65439@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >I was looking at the site () and came across "Version 1.0.14 of the SQLite >.Net Data Provider for ADO.NET 2.0/VS 2005 is out and includes design-time >support. You can now create databases, design queries, and drag-and-drop >tables to create typed datasets within Visual Studio 2005. " > > Is this capability still in there? I didn't see any examples of this. If > SQLite is as easy to use as this quote seems to make it (i.e. as easy to > use in the ide as SQL Express) we may just have a winner here. > > > "JimD" <Jim@keeliegirl.dyndns.org> wrote in message > news:yu8fg.8864$eQ4.3616@tornado.tampabay.rr.com... >> JimD wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> I forgot to mention about the connection string in the example. The >> connection string is: >> >> Data Source=database.db;Version=3;New=True;Compress=True; >> >> The New=True token says to create a new database. So every time you run >> the test program, you are creating a new database, overwriting the old. >> You probably don't want to do that with a real application. So you >> would only use the New=True in a connection string when you want to >> create a database for the first time. After that, you can either remove >> New=True or change it to New=False. >> >> >> Jim >> -- >> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> There's no place like 127.0.0.1 >> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> JimD >> Central FL, USA, Earth, Sol > >
Okay .. why does SQL express suck? It doesn't suck .. !!! It runs on a full
fledged SQL engine, sure deployment is a pain, but migrating to a fullblown SQL Server is relatively painless. Also, can you elaborate - [quoted text, click to view] >>| Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking >>compatability >> | with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking". ? - Sahil Malik http://www.winsmarts.com http://blah.winsmarts.com [quoted text, click to view] "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message news:mo7fg.66883$MM6.52917@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:eE$gLoFhGHA.3924@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>| Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking >>compatability >> | with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking". >> >> Not sure how they would do that other then via license. I mean a sql >> query >> is not going to look any different coming from asp.net page or from your >> own >> host? > > Not sure.....that's the word I got back from Steve Lasker when I emailed > him earlier today. > >> >> | Sounds all fluffy and sweet....but what it means is that you won't be >> able >> | to use SQL\e to easily deploy webservices (actually you can;t use it to >> | deploy them at all - easy or not). >> >> Again, I think you should at least be able to use SQL Express and it is >> free. IMHO, that product is a sweet and generous gift from MS. > > It is....for machines where you can install anything you want. For > ASP.Net hosted webservers, it sucks. > >
The fact that you can't control SQL Express (due to the fact that you
usually don't control the HOSTED servers) and that you could get more data into SQL Everywhere (or SQLite for that matter) simply by using the available disk space than you do with most hosted website's db plans (which will include hosted SQL Express servers) sucks! The fact that MS has an edition of Mobile SQL that they are making available for everything except IIS use sucks! The fact that Micrsoft added code to SQL Everywhere to PREVENT it from being used in an IIS process sucks! What about that don't you get? Microsoft again makes a valiant run downfield with the ball.....only to stop and sit on the 1 yard line. [quoted text, click to view] "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message news:OrGZK8GhGHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Okay .. why does SQL express suck? It doesn't suck .. !!! It runs on a > full fledged SQL engine, sure deployment is a pain, but migrating to a > fullblown SQL Server is relatively painless. > > > Also, can you elaborate - > >>>| Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking >>>compatability >>> | with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking". > > > ? > > - Sahil Malik > http://www.winsmarts.com > http://blah.winsmarts.com > > > > > "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message > news:mo7fg.66883$MM6.52917@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >> >> "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:eE$gLoFhGHA.3924@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>| Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking >>>compatability >>> | with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking". >>> >>> Not sure how they would do that other then via license. I mean a sql >>> query >>> is not going to look any different coming from asp.net page or from your >>> own >>> host? >> >> Not sure.....that's the word I got back from Steve Lasker when I emailed >> him earlier today. >> >>> >>> | Sounds all fluffy and sweet....but what it means is that you won't be >>> able >>> | to use SQL\e to easily deploy webservices (actually you can;t use it >>> to >>> | deploy them at all - easy or not). >>> >>> Again, I think you should at least be able to use SQL Express and it is >>> free. IMHO, that product is a sweet and generous gift from MS. >> >> It is....for machines where you can install anything you want. For >> ASP.Net hosted webservers, it sucks. >> >> > >
"INETA Speaker" - at least you're unbiased.
[quoted text, click to view] "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@nwlink.com> wrote in message news:OmWkZkHhGHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Ah SQL Express can be used with an IIS web site. SQL Everywhere cannot. > It's not designed to do so but SQL Express (still free) is. > Microsoft has done more for small business than any company I know. It now > offers three versions of its database technology for free. SQL Everywhere, > SQL Express and SQL Express Advanced Services that includes the Reporting > Services engine as well as Full Text Search. > > If you just want to bash Microsoft, find some other forum. > > -- > ____________________________________ > William (Bill) Vaughn > Author, Mentor, Consultant > Microsoft MVP > INETA Speaker > www.betav.com/blog/billva > www.betav.com > Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no > rights. > __________________________________ > > "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message > news:_J4fg.66487$MM6.19820@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >> Awesome! >> >> It doesn't look like they'll let us use it to power webservices under IIS >> though. >> >> That would suck. Allowing its use under IIS would make hosted web >> development so much easier! >> >> It would let small companies with big ideas give those ideas a shot at >> succeeding without spending several thousand dollars for SQL Server. >> >> But, I don't think MS is all that interested in helping small businesses >> grow. And, that's too bad. Doing so would actually fatten the bottom >> line at MS as the little businesses need more MS licenses and maybe a >> "grown up" version of SQL Server. >> >> If they did, who knows, it might even unseat MySQL as the web db king. >> >> Thanks for the great link! >> >> >> >> "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:Odp%23lzDhGHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> Another option for you may be SQL Everywhere. I think will be released >>> this >>> summer. 1.4mb with 7 dlls. >>> http://blogs.msdn.com/stevelasker/archive/2006/04/10/SqlEverywhereInfo.aspx >>> >>> -- >>> William Stacey [MVP] >>> >>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message >>> news:Dm2fg.66188$MM6.13884@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >>> |I mean that you can use Access databases simply by including the .mdb >>> files >>> | with your application, whereas using SQL Server Express requires that >>> you >>> | install SQL Server Express and have it running in the backgound. >>> | >>> | In the event that I use SQL Server Express and need to redistribute it >>> with >>> | my app, is there a silent install available? >>> | >>> | <james.curran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> | news:1149020977.932902.220830@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... >>> | > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires an installed >>> application >>> | > to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked. And, >>> since >>> | > your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify for >>> | > your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question. >>> | > >>> | > So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them. >>> | > 1) It's free. >>> | > 2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server. >>> | > >>> | >>> | >>> >>> >> >> > >
The connector for VS 2005 (.Net 2.0) makes connecting to the SQLite db a
snap. But, it lacks any means of database manipulation (i.e. adding/removing tables or columns or anything) from within the IDE. So, ease of use is definitely not up there with SQL Express. [quoted text, click to view] "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message news:Ue9fg.67013$MM6.27054@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > oops! forgot the link to the page where I saw the quote...... > > http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=489095 > > > > "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message > news:7e9fg.67012$MM6.65439@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >>I was looking at the site () and came across "Version 1.0.14 of the SQLite >>.Net Data Provider for ADO.NET 2.0/VS 2005 is out and includes design-time >>support. You can now create databases, design queries, and drag-and-drop >>tables to create typed datasets within Visual Studio 2005. " >> >> Is this capability still in there? I didn't see any examples of this. >> If SQLite is as easy to use as this quote seems to make it (i.e. as easy >> to use in the ide as SQL Express) we may just have a winner here. >> >> >> "JimD" <Jim@keeliegirl.dyndns.org> wrote in message >> news:yu8fg.8864$eQ4.3616@tornado.tampabay.rr.com... >>> JimD wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> I forgot to mention about the connection string in the example. The >>> connection string is: >>> >>> Data Source=database.db;Version=3;New=True;Compress=True; >>> >>> The New=True token says to create a new database. So every time you run >>> the test program, you are creating a new database, overwriting the old. >>> You probably don't want to do that with a real application. So you >>> would only use the New=True in a connection string when you want to >>> create a database for the first time. After that, you can either remove >>> New=True or change it to New=False. >>> >>> >>> Jim >>> -- >>> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >>> There's no place like 127.0.0.1 >>> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >>> JimD >>> Central FL, USA, Earth, Sol >> >> > >
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |