Access vs SQL

[Scott M.]

Re: Access vs SQL

How about if we say that an .mdb file is an Access file that wraps a JET
database and adds extensions of its own?

"Can't we all just get along?"

I think the fundamental point here is that there is no such thing as DATA
stored in Access format. An Access file is DATA stored in a JET database
along with Access elements such as reports, forms, VBA code, etc. and all of
that is placed in an Access .mdb file.

The proof in the pudding is that the data stored in an Access file can be
programmaticall y accessed and manipulated without having the Access client
because the actual data is not stored in an Access format, but in a JET
database.




"Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtE ndofMessage@sws pectrum.com> wrote in message
news:t1il51du90 5tem6agf6esaea8 mj06300d9@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> On 10 Apr 2005 18:58:31 -0700, aatcbbtccctc@ya hoo.com wrote:
>
> ¤ Not so, Cor.
> ¤
> ¤ MS Access does not contain any of the base technologies for creating &
> ¤ managing tables & indexes; parsing, optimizing & executing SQL; or any
> ¤ of the other things that database products have to do.
> ¤
> ¤ Those technologies all reside in a completely seperate product, MS Jet.
> ¤ Access uses the Jet API to create & maintain tables & indexes, execute
> ¤ SQL, and so on.
> ¤
>
> This is incorrect.
>
> I'm not sure why you're attempting to separate Jet from Microsoft Access.
> Each version of Microsoft
> Access is actually hard-wired for a specific version of Jet and the
> functionality is essentially
> integrated. You can also use DAO, ADO etc (independently) to work with an
> Access database directly
> or via OLEDB or ODBC drivers but there isn't the same level of support as
> when using the Microsoft
> Access application.
>
> ¤ Access does ask Jet (via a Jet API) to create, within the MDB file,
> ¤ some containers for Access to store its own things (forms, reports
> ¤ etc.) - but that does not make Access, a database.
> ¤
>
> Huh?
>
> ¤ I suspect your mistake is in believing that an MDB file is an *Access*
> ¤ file. It is not - it is a *Jet* file, in which Access is able to store
> ¤ its own things (in addition to the standard Jet things).
> ¤
>
> Baloney. It can contain data, code and database related objects that are
> native to the Microsoft
> Access application. An MDB file *is* an Access database.
>
> ¤ A VB program can use a Jet MDB file for database storage; but VB is not
> ¤ Access, and does not require Access to be present in any way, shape or
> ¤ form.
>
> That is, unless you attempt to use functionality that is not supported by
> Jet, but is only available
> through the Microsoft Access application.
>
>
> Paul
> ~~~~
> Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)[/color]

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: Access vs SQL

Scott,
[color=blue]
>
> I think the fundamental point here is that there is no such thing as DATA
> stored in Access format. An Access file is DATA stored in a JET database
> along with Access elements such as reports, forms, VBA code, etc. and all
> of that is placed in an Access .mdb file.
>[/color]
And what does that mean in your opinion about any other database. In this
thread is by one person denied that an Access datatase is a database. He
tells that it is a kind of application that uses a Jet database. What is not
false, however is in my opinion with an Access database normaly used the
same database and when we talk about the application we talk about MS Access
(at least I do).

Cor

[Scott M.]

Re: Access vs SQL

> And what does that mean in your opinion about any other database.

We're not talking about other databases in this thread. Access is special
in this regard.
[color=blue]
> In this thread is by one person denied that an Access datatase is a
> database. He tells that it is a kind of application that uses a Jet
> database.[/color]

Actually, I think pretty much everyone in this thread (except you) has said
this...because it's true.
[color=blue]
>What is not false, however is in my opinion with an Access database normaly
>used the same database and when we talk about the application we talk about
>MS Access (at least I do).[/color]

It's true that for most discussions, people will tend to say "Access" when
talking about the MS Access software product as well as when they are
referring to the "type" of database they are using. For *most*
conversations that is fine because most people will know what you mean.

For the purpose of this thread though, we must get a bit more technical and
separate the database from the product that uses that database.

Technically speaking, there is no such database storage format as "Access",
there is the JET database storage format that Access uses and wraps.

Think about this for a second Cor...if I wanted to connect to the data
stored in a MS Access file (.mdb), I'd have several choices:

DAO - DAO is a data access paradigm that ONLY works with JET databases

ADO - ADO would need a connection object and the connection object would
need a connection string. The connection string would be this:
Proider=Microso ft.JET.4.0;Data Source=.... (notice the JET in there?)

ADO.NET - same as ADO

[Paul Clement]

Re: Access vs SQL

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:03:13 -0400, "Scott M." <s-mar@nospam.nosp am> wrote:

¤ How about if we say that an .mdb file is an Access file that wraps a JET
¤ database and adds extensions of its own?
¤
¤ "Can't we all just get along?"
¤

What's the fun in that? ;-)

¤ I think the fundamental point here is that there is no such thing as DATA
¤ stored in Access format. An Access file is DATA stored in a JET database
¤ along with Access elements such as reports, forms, VBA code, etc. and all of
¤ that is placed in an Access .mdb file.
¤
¤ The proof in the pudding is that the data stored in an Access file can be
¤ programmaticall y accessed and manipulated without having the Access client
¤ because the actual data is not stored in an Access format, but in a JET
¤ database.

So can an Excel Workbook. So can a CSV file. Does that make them "Jet databases"?

Jet is the database access layer component for Microsoft Access. It does not define any specific
type of database. It is not a product and many who use Access have absolutely no awareness of Jet.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: Access vs SQL

Paul,
[color=blue]
>
> So can an Excel Workbook. So can a CSV file. Does that make them "Jet
> databases"?
>[/color]
Thanks for pointing us on that.

Cor

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: Access vs SQL

Scott,
[color=blue][color=green]
>> And what does that mean in your opinion about any other database.[/color]
>
> We're not talking about other databases in this thread. Access is special
> in this regard.
>[/color]
Before you write next time something, look than at least at the topic.
[color=blue]
> Actually, I think pretty much everyone in this thread (except you) has
> said this...because it's true.
>[/color]

Read the messages, I have not the idea beside you and the one who told that
Microsoft don't know what Access is wrote the same as you.

Look for the rest too the answer from Paul.

Cor

[Scott M.]

Re: Access vs SQL

> Jet is the database access layer component for Microsoft Access. It does[color=blue]
> not define any specific
> type of database. It is not a product and many who use Access have
> absolutely no awareness of Jet.[/color]

It's true that most who use Access don't know anything about JET. That only
proves that Access wraps the JET database.

Tell me, what is the connection string in ADO or ADO.NET to connect to an
..mdb file?
Tell me, what is the only kind of data that DAO can connect to?

[Scott M.]

Re: Access vs SQL

>>> And what does that mean in your opinion about any other database.[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>> We're not talking about other databases in this thread. Access is
>> special in this regard.
>>[/color][/color]

-----> Before you write next time something, look than at least at the
topic.

Cor, the last several times you have replied to my comments in other
threads, you have come back at me with cryptic responses like this one.
What are you trying to say? I have read this thread and my posts are very
clear on what I'm saying. Your posts, on the other hand, are contradictory
and confusing.
[color=blue]
> Actually, I think pretty much everyone in this thread (except you) has[color=green]
>> said this...because it's true.
>>[/color]
>[/color]
-----> Read the messages, I have not the idea beside you and the one who
told that
-----> Microsoft don't know what Access is wrote the same as you.

I have absolutley no idea what you are trying to say here.
[color=blue]
> Look for the rest too the answer from Paul.[/color]

Paul has posted 1 message in this thread prior to my comment to you and I
disagree with him as well.

[Scott M.]

Re: Access vs SQL

From:

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/sql/7/all/proddocs/en-us/msjet/jetintro.mspx

"Since its introduction in 1992, the Microsoft Jet database engine has been
in a unique position. Because Microsoft Jet is not a stand-alone product -
you cannot buy it at your local software retailer - most developers who use
it have learned about its functionality in a second-hand fashion from the
documentation included in Microsoft Access, Microsoft Office, Microsoft
Visual Basic®, Microsoft Visual C++®, or Microsoft Visual J++®. "



"Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtE ndofMessage@sws pectrum.com> wrote in message
news:2mon511v6n d31e4u7tisc2d2m 0n01k4fq5@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:03:13 -0400, "Scott M." <s-mar@nospam.nosp am>
> wrote:
>
> ¤ How about if we say that an .mdb file is an Access file that wraps a JET
> ¤ database and adds extensions of its own?
> ¤
> ¤ "Can't we all just get along?"
> ¤
>
> What's the fun in that? ;-)
>
> ¤ I think the fundamental point here is that there is no such thing as
> DATA
> ¤ stored in Access format. An Access file is DATA stored in a JET
> database
> ¤ along with Access elements such as reports, forms, VBA code, etc. and
> all of
> ¤ that is placed in an Access .mdb file.
> ¤
> ¤ The proof in the pudding is that the data stored in an Access file can
> be
> ¤ programmaticall y accessed and manipulated without having the Access
> client
> ¤ because the actual data is not stored in an Access format, but in a JET
> ¤ database.
>
> So can an Excel Workbook. So can a CSV file. Does that make them "Jet
> databases"?
>
> Jet is the database access layer component for Microsoft Access. It does
> not define any specific
> type of database. It is not a product and many who use Access have
> absolutely no awareness of Jet.
>
>
> Paul
> ~~~~
> Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)[/color]

[Scott M.]

Re: Access vs SQL

From:

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/sql/7/all/proddocs/en-us/msjet/jetintro.mspx

"Since its introduction in 1992, the Microsoft Jet database engine has been
in a unique position. Because Microsoft Jet is not a stand-alone product -
you cannot buy it at your local software retailer - most developers who use
it have learned about its functionality in a second-hand fashion from the
documentation included in Microsoft Access, Microsoft Office, Microsoft
Visual Basic®, Microsoft Visual C++®, or Microsoft Visual J++®. "


"Cor Ligthert" <notmyfirstname @planet.nl> wrote in message
news:uJ3QV93PFH A.1396@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Scott,
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> And what does that mean in your opinion about any other database.[/color]
>>
>> We're not talking about other databases in this thread. Access is
>> special in this regard.
>>[/color]
> Before you write next time something, look than at least at the topic.
>[color=green]
>> Actually, I think pretty much everyone in this thread (except you) has
>> said this...because it's true.
>>[/color]
>
> Read the messages, I have not the idea beside you and the one who told
> that Microsoft don't know what Access is wrote the same as you.
>
> Look for the rest too the answer from Paul.
>
> Cor
>
>[/color]

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: Access vs SQL


"Scott M." <s-mar@nospam.nosp am> schreef in bericht
news:O81DVP4PFH A.548@TK2MSFTNG P10.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> And what does that mean in your opinion about any other database.
>>>
>>> We're not talking about other databases in this thread. Access is
>>> special in this regard.
>>>[/color][/color]
>
> -----> Before you write next time something, look than at least at the
> topic.
>
> Cor, the last several times you have replied to my comments in other
> threads, you have come back at me with cryptic responses like this one.
> What are you trying to say? I have read this thread and my posts are very
> clear on what I'm saying. Your posts, on the other hand, are
> contradictory and confusing.
>[/color]
We are talking about the use of Access vs SQL (server) in this thread, look
at the subject of all the messages.

For me did you not notice that, because that is what you wrote. It does
really not give me much believe that you did read this message thread.

Cor

[Scott M.]

Re: Access vs SQL

LOL!!!

Cor, the subject may be Access vs. SQL, but the topic quickly turned to JET
and Access. The fact that you want to ignore what we have actually been
talking about here (including your own comments), just tells me that you
have nothing else to offer.


"Cor Ligthert" <notmyfirstname @planet.nl> wrote in message
news:eG3MPq4PFH A.3704@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> "Scott M." <s-mar@nospam.nosp am> schreef in bericht
> news:O81DVP4PFH A.548@TK2MSFTNG P10.phx.gbl...[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>> And what does that mean in your opinion about any other database.
>>>>
>>>> We're not talking about other databases in this thread. Access is
>>>> special in this regard.
>>>>[/color]
>>
>> -----> Before you write next time something, look than at least at the
>> topic.
>>
>> Cor, the last several times you have replied to my comments in other
>> threads, you have come back at me with cryptic responses like this one.
>> What are you trying to say? I have read this thread and my posts are
>> very clear on what I'm saying. Your posts, on the other hand, are
>> contradictory and confusing.
>>[/color]
> We are talking about the use of Access vs SQL (server) in this thread,
> look at the subject of all the messages.
>
> For me did you not notice that, because that is what you wrote. It does
> really not give me much believe that you did read this message thread.
>
> Cor
>[/color]

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: Access vs SQL

Scott,
[color=blue]
> Cor, the subject may be Access vs. SQL, but the topic quickly turned to
> JET and Access. The fact that you want to ignore what we have actually
> been talking about here (including your own comments), just tells me that
> you have nothing else to offer.
>[/color]

We ????

There was only one person beside later you, who in this thread told that
access was not a db.

This is from your first message in this thread.[color=blue]
>Access does not implement any db security (beyond a db password)[/color]

And now Access is no more a db, why has it than a db password.

Scott, whatever you write in newsgroups can be checked, so watch what you
write.

However in the last sentence from your last message you are right, I have
nothing more to offer in this thread, everything is already written in this
thread and that was already before you started beating that dead horse.

Cor

[Scott M.]

Re: Access vs SQL

It's clear Cor that English isn't your first language (not trying to insult
you, just stating a fact). And, it's clear that you haven't been reading or
writing your English very well also.

Let's go back and "check" the thread as you suggest:

There were seven (7) messages on the "Access is or isn't a database" topic
involving three (3) other people BESIDES myself BEFORE I said anything about
Access and JET.

Yes, I did say "Access does not implement any db security (beyond a db
password)", but that doesn't automatically mean that Access is a database at
all. It simply means that Access implements a password on the JET database.
Are you really telling me that you couldn't put that together yourself?

You confuse me to no end Cor, because you write such off the wall things.
You constantly contradict yourself and state things that were never said by
anyone as if they were said by me and then deny things that were said by
yourself.

You are really telling me that you don't understand the concept of a thread
that breaks off into a sub-thread about a different twist on the original
post?

Seriously?

And are you seriously telling me that you can't separate something that was
said in one thread (when the term Access is used to refer to BOTH the
product and the data as I stated in my earlier post that I guess you didn't
read) from something that was said in a sub-thread (when we were discussing
this on a more technical level where Access is NOT used to describe BOTH the
product and the data)?

If my posts confuse you, my desire to have you clarify yourself bothers you
and my asking that you not go on babbling about un-related and non-factual
information bothers you so, please feel free to filter me from your NG
reader.

You are constantly telling me to go back and read the thread, but it is you
who isn't reading (or understanding) what is being said and is coming up
with non-sensical statements. It's very clear what I am saying, to whom I
said it and when, here's the summary:

Access is not as good as SQL for concurrent users.
Access does not support Stored Procedures to the extent that SQL does.
Access does not support the same level of security that SQL does.
Access is a product that wraps a JET database and extends it's UI via VBA,
Forms, Queries and Reports.

This is pretty darn clear Cor and it is almost identical to what I've said
in the previous posts. You may not agree (and I respect your right to do
so), but you seem to be the only one who doesn't, at least, understand what
I'm saying.




"Cor Ligthert" <notmyfirstname @planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%23uSx4C5P FHA.1500@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> Scott,
>[color=green]
>> Cor, the subject may be Access vs. SQL, but the topic quickly turned to
>> JET and Access. The fact that you want to ignore what we have actually
>> been talking about here (including your own comments), just tells me that
>> you have nothing else to offer.
>>[/color]
>
> We ????
>
> There was only one person beside later you, who in this thread told that
> access was not a db.
>
> This is from your first message in this thread.[color=green]
>>Access does not implement any db security (beyond a db password)[/color]
>
> And now Access is no more a db, why has it than a db password.
>
> Scott, whatever you write in newsgroups can be checked, so watch what you
> write.
>
> However in the last sentence from your last message you are right, I have
> nothing more to offer in this thread, everything is already written in
> this thread and that was already before you started beating that dead
> horse.
>
> Cor
>
>[/color]

[Scott M.]

Re: Access vs SQL

Here's even more from that same article:

"Microsoft Access Users When you create an object through DAO by using
Microsoft Jet, only the standard built-in properties are created in the new
object's Properties collection. However, when Microsoft Access creates a
Microsoft Jet object, it may add several user-defined properties to objects.
These properties are a special case of user-defined properties known as
application-defined properties. For example, when you create a table in the
Microsoft Access user interface, and type a value in the Description field,
it automatically adds a new property to the TableDef object to represent the
description."

Notice how they refer to Access, not as the database, but as the "Microsoft
Access user interface"?

Notice how they talk about MS Access creating a "Microsoft Jet object"?

And, if you read the whole article, you'll see them talk about the actual
database being one of the DAO objects and that the DAO objects are APIs to
JET objects.

Is this clear enough for you?


"Cor Ligthert" <notmyfirstname @planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%23uSx4C5P FHA.1500@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> Scott,
>[color=green]
>> Cor, the subject may be Access vs. SQL, but the topic quickly turned to
>> JET and Access. The fact that you want to ignore what we have actually
>> been talking about here (including your own comments), just tells me that
>> you have nothing else to offer.
>>[/color]
>
> We ????
>
> There was only one person beside later you, who in this thread told that
> access was not a db.
>
> This is from your first message in this thread.[color=green]
>>Access does not implement any db security (beyond a db password)[/color]
>
> And now Access is no more a db, why has it than a db password.
>
> Scott, whatever you write in newsgroups can be checked, so watch what you
> write.
>
> However in the last sentence from your last message you are right, I have
> nothing more to offer in this thread, everything is already written in
> this thread and that was already before you started beating that dead
> horse.
>
> Cor
>
>[/color]