Access or SQL Server ?

[Denis]

Hi

I am planning to design a database (destined for the web) that will have
between 20000 and 45000 records in it and will receive a lot of reads but
very very few writes (just from me).

Now the question is should I use:

1) The combination of Access 2000 (accessible through ASP or ASP.NET) using
OLEDB Jet

or

2) SQL Server 2000 ?

Of course I know that the SQL Server option is a better one, especially
since it's said that an Access DB can have about 9 users or so accessing it
at the same time. But is that a general rule or is it about many people
writing to the DB? In other words, if an Access DB has hardly any writes
and 99.9% reads can it be used as efficiently as it would be used on SQL
Server 2000?

[Chip]

Re: Access or SQL Server ?

As a very serious SQL developer... you should probably go with Access on
this one. SQL may be more robust but it's a lot more work to maintain and
more expensive.

Doing mostly reads, and with that few records, you might want to investigate
..NET's ability to read the tables into memory to share amongst users. You
would then read from Access only once. I can't tell you how to do it since I
have never tried it.

Chip


"Denis" <k9kondop@hotma il.com> wrote in message
news:%235Aeg304 DHA.2556@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> Hi
>
> I am planning to design a database (destined for the web) that will have
> between 20000 and 45000 records in it and will receive a lot of reads but
> very very few writes (just from me).
>
> Now the question is should I use:
>
> 1) The combination of Access 2000 (accessible through ASP or ASP.NET)[/color]
using[color=blue]
> OLEDB Jet
>
> or
>
> 2) SQL Server 2000 ?
>
> Of course I know that the SQL Server option is a better one, especially
> since it's said that an Access DB can have about 9 users or so accessing[/color]
it[color=blue]
> at the same time. But is that a general rule or is it about many people
> writing to the DB? In other words, if an Access DB has hardly any writes
> and 99.9% reads can it be used as efficiently as it would be used on SQL
> Server 2000?
>
>
>[/color]

[Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]]

Re: Access or SQL Server ?

SQL Server is certainly preferable.
The only way to know for sure if it will meet your needs is to test it both
ways. If you don't want to test theh just go with SQL Server because there
is no doubt it will meet your needs.
Access might seem like a simpler solution, but it also needs maintenance,
such as compacting & repairing (since it tends to suffer more corruption
problems - especially older versions of Access.)
Unless you have some major financial considerations encouraging you to try
out Access, my suggestion would be to go with SQL Server. Few serious web
sites use Access as a back end.

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD, MVP

http://Steve.Orr.net

"Denis" <k9kondop@hotma il.com> wrote in message
news:%235Aeg304 DHA.2556@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> Hi
>
> I am planning to design a database (destined for the web) that will have
> between 20000 and 45000 records in it and will receive a lot of reads but
> very very few writes (just from me).
>
> Now the question is should I use:
>
> 1) The combination of Access 2000 (accessible through ASP or ASP.NET)[/color]
using[color=blue]
> OLEDB Jet
>
> or
>
> 2) SQL Server 2000 ?
>
> Of course I know that the SQL Server option is a better one, especially
> since it's said that an Access DB can have about 9 users or so accessing[/color]
it[color=blue]
> at the same time. But is that a general rule or is it about many people
> writing to the DB? In other words, if an Access DB has hardly any writes
> and 99.9% reads can it be used as efficiently as it would be used on SQL
> Server 2000?
>
>
>[/color]