Access 2000 or SQL Server 2000

Discussion in 'ASP General' started by Denis, Jan 25, 2004.

  1. Denis

    Denis Guest

    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?
     
    Denis, Jan 25, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Denis,

    For mostly read access, a properly optimized local Jet (Access) database
    should offer performance similar to that of a local SQL Server database, and
    better than that of a SQL Server database on another machine.

    That said, the number of concurrent connections present a hard limitation
    with Jet. For mostly read access, you can definitely exceed 9 concurrent
    connections. The hard upper limit is 255, but it's very difficult to reach
    in practice. Even with mostly read access, 50-100 concurrent connections is
    a much more realistic goal. This doesn't mean that Jet would necessarily be
    unsuitable, but you might want to put more weight on your answers to the
    following questions than on the performance issue:

    1. How many concurrent users do you expect?
    2. How would you rate your skills in sufficiently optimizing a Jet database
    for this type of access? (i.e.: How much time are you going to lose with
    this?)
    3. How difficult and/or time consuming would it be for you to convert to
    SQL Server if this becomes necessary?

    In particular, compare the likely costs of #2 and 3 to the cost of
    immediately implementing SQL Server instead. You might find that it's just
    not worth considering Jet at all...

    HTH,
    Nicole


    "Denis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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?
    >
    >
    >
     
    Nicole Calinoiu, Jan 25, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?Z2F1cmF2?=

    Uploading Data From MS Acess 2000 ti SQL server 2000

    =?Utf-8?B?Z2F1cmF2?=, Jan 9, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    809
    Mary Chipman [MSFT]
    Jan 9, 2006
  2. Vaap
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,180
  3. Daves
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    378
  4. C Did
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,958
    Chris Lithgow
    Jun 20, 2006
  5. Grey Alien

    SQL Server 2000 vs SQL Server Express

    Grey Alien, Jul 8, 2007, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    496
    Grey Alien
    Jul 9, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page