Access upgrade

[Gary]

I am currently using Access 97, I have several custom programs. The largest table I have has 50,000 records. The company is not very large less then 30 people. I am ready to upgrade to the lastest Access program. Should I consider a SQL server? Does anyone have a comparison chart showing the pro's and con's of Access verses SQL?

 

[Ed]

Should you consider SQL? Yes! Should you get it? Hard to tell. How is your
performance now? Do all 30 people use your application or only a few. Do you
expect additional growth or additional applications to be added? Does the
50,000 rows represent a week's worth of work? A year's? A lot will depend on
how your application was designed in the first place.

If you have a lot of users, your SQL database is on a fast server, you
re-code some of the application so that you take advantage of stored
procedures & views that run on the server and your network and/or client
machines are relatively slow, you will probably have some performance
improvement. On the other hand, you may not be able to tell much difference.

--
Ed

Remove the capital ST spam trap
when replying directly to me.

I am currently using Access 97, I have several custom programs. The

largest table I have has 50,000 records. The company is not very large less
then 30 people. I am ready to upgrade to the lastest Access program.
Should I consider a SQL server? Does anyone have a comparison chart showing
the pro's and con's of Access verses SQL?

 

[Gary]

Thank you Ed for your reponse. I posted this also in the Access General Question. I am new to newsgroups. The speed seems okay, I would expect it to get faster using the newer software. The 50,000 entries is over 10 years of data.

Only a few use the database at once let say 5 concurrent users.

The application runs at the client station and the MDB file is linked to other shared MDB files located on a server.

 

[Ed]

Given your response, I'd probably just leave everything in ACCESS. I'm
assuming your experience is in Access and you may be new to SQL. There is
definitely a learning curve to use stored procedures and the syntax for
views (queries) is different in SQL. 5 users and adding 5000 records per
year is well within the capabilities of Access. No point in complicating
life unless there's a good reason.

One thing to note - if you are the only developer and everyone else simply
uses your database, you might consider getting the Developer's edition. You
can then distribute your database to the users with the Access Runtime
package. I find that somewhat of an advantage in that if they don't have the
full Access version, they can do less harm to your programs.


--
Ed

Remove the capital ST spam trap
when replying directly to me.

Thank you Ed for your reponse. I posted this also in the Access General

Question. I am new to newsgroups. The speed seems okay, I would expect it
to get faster using the newer software. The 50,000 entries is over 10 years
of data.

Only a few use the database at once let say 5 concurrent users.

The application runs at the client station and the MDB file is linked to

other shared MDB files located on a server.

 

[Van T. Dinh]

It sounds to me staying with Access / JET back-end is the
more econimical option. Have you looked at the license
fees for the SQL Server?

In addition, there is a fair bit of learning if you want
to use the SQL Server as the Back-End.

Your requirements are well within the capacity of JET. I
have 3 clients who requirements are somewhat larger than
yours and they are working fine with Access / JET back-
ends.

HTH
Van T. Dinh
MVP (Access)

-----Original Message-----
Thank you Ed for your reponse. I posted this also in the

Access General Question. I am new to newsgroups. The
speed seems okay, I would expect it to get faster using
the newer software. The 50,000 entries is over 10 years
of data.

Only a few use the database at once let say 5 concurrent users.

The application runs at the client station and the MDB

file is linked to other shared MDB files located on a
server.