By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,687 Members | 2,028 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,687 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Oracle vs Access

P: n/a
Does anyone have a good URL or info whre Oracle and Access are
compared to one another in performance, security, cost etc. Before
you jump on me I know Oracle is a Cadillac compared to Access the Ford
Fairlane. I need this info to complete a school project. Thanks.
Nov 13 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
11 Replies


P: n/a
"Rosco" <ro***@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6f********************************@4ax.com...
Does anyone have a good URL or info whre Oracle and Access are
compared to one another in performance, security, cost etc. Before
you jump on me I know Oracle is a Cadillac compared to Access the Ford
Fairlane. I need this info to complete a school project. Thanks.


To be clear, you should realize that ms-access is not the actual database.
For example, it would be silly to compare VB and Oracle.

C++, VB, VB.net and ms-access are all development tools that let you create
applications that CONNECT to a database system.

In the case of ms-access, you can choose what database engine you want. That
database engine can be:

JET - the default file share based system

SQL server (a free copy of the desktop editing of sql server is included
on every office cd for use with ms-access).
Oracle - (or any other odbc data engine).

So, to compare VB and Oracle,

Or

To compare ms-access and Oracle don't make sense at all!

You certainly might want to compare a server based database engine like
Oracle to a file share based engine like JET to *highlight* the differences
in how they operate. (Ie: JET is a file share, and Oracle is a client to
server database system).

However, the JET data engine does NOT have to be used
with ms-access.

So, no one would ask you to compare VB and Oracle. This same reasoning
applies to ms-access. Ms-access is simply a integrated development tool
(IDE) to create applications with (this is same as VB, VB.net or c++). In
fact, the programming language in ms-access is the same as VB (VB6 to be
exact, and in fact even shares the same code base).

You also note that Microsoft's sql server (or the Oracle database for this
matter) does NOT let you create forms or develop a User interface. So, these
database server products do NOT let you create forms. So, you have to choose
what you will use to create the UI. That UI might be VB, c++, ms-access or
even web based interface.

So, there is little, if anything in ms-access that you can compare to
Oracle. You can certainly use ms-access as a client development tool to
Oracle, and in this case the only limits in the numbers of users will be the
limits of the Oracle database, and NOT that of ms-access.

There are some companies that have 1000 ms-access users working at the
same time

....but of course they are connecting to sql server. Once again, the
limits of ms-access are that of the database server that you connect to (be
it Oracle, MySql, Sybase or Microsoft's own sql server).

I think the question needs to be clarified, or perhaps re-worded as
ms-access is not a database, nor is it even a data engine....

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
http://www.attcanada.net/~kallal.msn

Nov 13 '05 #2

P: n/a

"Albert D. Kallal" <Pl*******************@msn.com> wrote in message
news:0okQc.14481$M95.1024@pd7tw1no...
Ms-access is simply a integrated development tool
(IDE) to create applications with (this is same as VB, VB.net or c++).
[That's why the newbies are always trying to make an executable out of it!]

ms-access is not a database, nor is it even a data engine....


[Wait til Microsoft hears about that!]
Nov 13 '05 #3

P: n/a
"XMVP" <ac***********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:me********************@vnet-inc.com...

"Albert D. Kallal" <Pl*******************@msn.com> wrote in message
news:0okQc.14481$M95.1024@pd7tw1no...
Ms-access is simply a integrated development tool
(IDE) to create applications with (this is same as VB, VB.net or c++).


[That's why the newbies are always trying to make an executable out of

it!]

LOL!...this is true! I will add that with .net you do need a 20 meg runtime
also..so, really, the concept of a runtime for use with applications
certainly has made the big show. You make a .exe in .net...but you need
that other 20 meg thing!!! (kind of like ms-access now.....eh?!).
ms-access is not a database, nor is it even a data engine....


[Wait til Microsoft hears about that!]


It would be most fair to point that "most" in the IT industry do refer to
ms-access as a database . (I would accept any reasonable argument on this
issue..since ms-access has been around for 10 years now..and the general
term "ms-access" does hint, or imply some type of database).

However, for the last 3 versions ms-access can function as a native client
to sql server (no jet or local tables are even allowed!). So, I think it is
quite fair to view ms-access as a IDE like VB or whatever, since it can be
used in a 100% client mode with no local data engine.

If there is no data, no tables and no data engine, then it really can't be a
database...can it?
--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
http://www.attcanada.net/~kallal.msn
Nov 13 '05 #4

P: n/a

"Albert D. Kallal" <Pl*******************@msn.com> wrote in message
news:22AQc.18932$M95.15728@pd7tw1no...

If there is no data, no tables and no data engine, then it really can't be a database...can it?

I think you're splitting hairs. What you're arguing sounds like something
out of "Computer Metaphysics 101," where a bunch of students sit around
asking questions like WHAT IS A DATABASE? Or maybe, WHEN IS A DATABASE NOT
A DATABASE?

"Database" is just a general term to describe an assortment of files
(programs, libraries, etc.) that work together to achieve a desired result.
It makes no difference if the files are all from the same vendor and come on
one CD or if they come from many vendors on many CDs.

Look at it this way. If you bought a car you'd expect it to have an engine
right? Why? Because it won't function without an engine. But it would
still be a car. What else can you call it?

Microsoft throws in one or two engines with every copy of Access so they can
call Access a "database."
According to Google, definitions of "database" on the Web:
an organized body of related information
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
A collection of data: part numbers, product codes, customer information,
etc. It usually refers to data organized and stored on a computer that can
be searched and retrieved by a computer program. Back to Top
support.sbcglobal.net/general/662.shtml
A data structure that stores metadata, i.e. data about data. More
generally, an organized collection of information.
http://www.informatics.jax.org/mgiho...glossary.shtml
A collection of information organized and presented to serve a specific
purpose. (A telephone book is a common database.) A computerized database is
an updated, organized file of machine readable information that is rapidly
searched and retrieved by computer.
http://www.libraries.uc.edu/help/how.../glossary.html
An organized collection of information in computerized format.
www.lib.umd.edu/UES/er_glossary.html
a computerized collection of information.
altweb.jhsph.edu/education/glossary.htm
A collection of related information. All the data about a calf crop might
be called a database. See DBMS.
www.oznet.ksu.edu/ed_asi490/Glossary/cgw.htm
A collection of information, usually stored in an electronic format that
can be searched by a computer.
http://www.lib.purdue.edu/rguides/st.../glossary.html
Any organized collection of information; it may be paper or electronic.
www.library.arizona.edu/rio/glossary.htm
- can be as simple as a card file; a collection of information stored in a
computer medium that can be easily accessed and manipulated.
www.usps.com/directmail/glossary.htm
A specific collection of information. Most sites typically have a single
database for their full text collections, with separate databases for
abstract databases. Download The action of saving information to your disk,
whether permanent or temporary, for personal reference or use.
scienceserver.cilea.it/help/default/glossary.htm
1. Any collection of information on a specific subject or area.
Specifically, a computerized collection of such information. 2. A computer
program designed to store such information.
www.hometravelagency.com/dictionary/ltrd.html
a database is an organized collection of information or data. The Swansea
Voyager catalogue is a database of library stock and we have access to other
databases, such as Web of Science, which can help you to find information on
a topic. Our subject services page can help you to select a database.
http://www.swan.ac.uk/lis/help_and_t...g/glossary.asp
(MySQL)-A collection of organized information in which a computer can
easily display and select different fields of data. You can think of a
database as an electronic filing system. You can include anything from
birthdays to travel itinerary in a database. MySQL is the database
management system we feature at Thelix. Back to Top
www.thelix.net/support/faq/glossary.htm
A collection of related information about a subject organized in a useful
manner that provides a base or foundation for procedures such as retrieving
information, drawing conclusions, and making decisions.
www.ascld-lab.org/aslab022.html
A shared collection of logically related data, designed to meet the
information needs of multiple users in an organization. The term database is
often erroneously referred to as a synonym for a "database management system
(DBMS)". They are not equivalent. A database is a store of data that
describe entities and the relationships between the entities. A database
management system is the software mechanism for managing that data.
www.gtscompanies.com/glosscomp.html
A collection of data or information. As the term is usually employed in
on-line information retrieval, it refers to a collection of records.

http://www.chin.gc.ca/English/Collec.../glossary.html
A set of related information created, stored, or manipulated by a
computerized management information system.
www.nrc.gov/site-help/eie/terms_id.html
Related information stored in one location in a digital format. Dependant
upon the software used to manage a database, minimally, information can be
added to, retrieved from and sorted.
www.cren.net/crenca/glossary/cpglossary.html
A database is a collection of data, typically organized to make common
retrievals easy and efficient. Some common database programs include Oracle,
Sybase, Postgres, Informix, Filemaker, etc.
www.saugus.net/Computer/terms.shtml
A collection of related types of data in a single file or set of files for
sorting, analysing, and reporting.
knight.city.ba.k12.md.us/ib/glossary.htm
One or more structured sets of persistent data, usually associated with
software (a database management system) to update and query the data. In
AIPS++, the Table system is used to enable a database. A simple database
might be a single file containing many records, each of which contains the
same set of fields where each field is a certain fixed width. A more complex
relational database allows the definition of data structures, storage and
retrieval operations, and integrity constraints. In such a database, the
data and relations between them are organized in tables.
aips2.nrao.edu/docs/glossary/d.html
D Database - an organized collection of information (e.g. ERIC, The
Catalogue).
library.usask.ca/tutorials/basics/tutorial/gloss.html
a collection of information in electronic format. Some databases have
bibliographical information relating to books, articles, and other published
material. Other databases provide numeric or statistical information. [Find
out more about the databases available from Memorial at MUN Libraries:
Databases.]
http://www.mun.ca/library/research_h.../glossary.html
is an organized collection of information stored on a computer. With
Optix, a database is an organized collection of electronic documents stored
on a computer. The database is structured to facilitate the search and
retrieval of information contained in the database.
www.mindwrap.com/support/glossary.html
A collection of stored data.
www.jcaho.org/lwapps/shared/glossary.htm


Nov 13 '05 #5

P: n/a
"XMVP" <ac***********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s-********************@vnet-inc.com...
I think you're splitting hairs. What you're arguing sounds like something
out of "Computer Metaphysics 101," where a bunch of students sit around
asking questions like WHAT IS A DATABASE? Or maybe, WHEN IS A DATABASE NOT A DATABASE?

"Database" is just a general term to describe an assortment of files
(programs, libraries, etc.) that work together to achieve a desired result. It makes no difference if the files are all from the same vendor and come on one CD or if they come from many vendors on many CDs.

Look at it this way. If you bought a car you'd expect it to have an engine right? Why? Because it won't function without an engine. But it would
still be a car. What else can you call it?

Microsoft throws in one or two engines with every copy of Access so they can call Access a "database."


Actually, this issue is more then just splitting hairs, or one of semantics
here.

I mean, it is rather silly to compare ms-access to Oracle?

Sure, lets compare JET to Oracle, or the MSDE to Oracle , or sql server to
oracle.

If you speak of ms-access as product, then it has data engines, and also has
a IDE. In fact, we are talking about a data client development tool.

We certainly could and should compare ms-access to the Oracle client tools
(The Oracle forms developer suite).

So, yes, we can call ms-access a database by many definitions as you show (I
am not disagreeing on that). In fact, based on the many links for data defs
you have, then we can call VB, or c++ a database by those defs (if you
include the JET dao library with those products, and, this is often
done...especially with VB)

However, for the sake learning something, ms-access is more of client
development tool then it is a database. So, sure, lets compare the Oracle
Forms Developer Suite to ms-access.

However, I am at a loss as to how (or why) we would compare VB to Oracle, or
compare c++ to Oracle, or ms-access to Oracle????

Unless some clarification of the database engine is made, the term
"ms-access" is much too loose to define what is to be compared to Oracle.

So, yea...we can say they both are cars...but lets not compare the seats in
one car to the engine in the other car...it don't make sense to do that.

Lets not compare the tires on one car to the engine on the other car....

To learn and have a discussion on, this matter...we will need to define what
is to be compared. So, sure, lets compare ms-access forms against the Forms
tools in Oracle....I have no probelm with that...

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
http://www.attcanada.net/~kallal.msn
Nov 13 '05 #6

P: n/a

"Albert D. Kallal" <Pl*******************@msn.com> wrote in message
news:YMHQc.26773$M95.21859@pd7tw1no...
"XMVP" <ac***********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s-********************@vnet-inc.com...
I think you're splitting hairs. What you're arguing sounds like something out of "Computer Metaphysics 101," where a bunch of students sit around
asking questions like WHAT IS A DATABASE? Or maybe, WHEN IS A DATABASE NOT
A DATABASE?

"Database" is just a general term to describe an assortment of files
(programs, libraries, etc.) that work together to achieve a desired

result.
It makes no difference if the files are all from the same vendor and

come on
one CD or if they come from many vendors on many CDs.

Look at it this way. If you bought a car you'd expect it to have an engine
right? Why? Because it won't function without an engine. But it would
still be a car. What else can you call it?

Microsoft throws in one or two engines with every copy of Access so they

can
call Access a "database."


Actually, this issue is more then just splitting hairs, or one of

semantics here.

I mean, it is rather silly to compare ms-access to Oracle?

Sure, lets compare JET to Oracle, or the MSDE to Oracle , or sql server to
oracle.

If you speak of ms-access as product, then it has data engines, and also has a IDE. In fact, we are talking about a data client development tool.

We certainly could and should compare ms-access to the Oracle client tools
(The Oracle forms developer suite).

So, yes, we can call ms-access a database by many definitions as you show (I am not disagreeing on that). In fact, based on the many links for data defs you have, then we can call VB, or c++ a database by those defs (if you
include the JET dao library with those products, and, this is often
done...especially with VB)

However, for the sake learning something, ms-access is more of client
development tool then it is a database. So, sure, lets compare the Oracle
Forms Developer Suite to ms-access.

However, I am at a loss as to how (or why) we would compare VB to Oracle, or compare c++ to Oracle, or ms-access to Oracle????

Unless some clarification of the database engine is made, the term
"ms-access" is much too loose to define what is to be compared to Oracle.

So, yea...we can say they both are cars...but lets not compare the seats in one car to the engine in the other car...it don't make sense to do that.

Lets not compare the tires on one car to the engine on the other car....

To learn and have a discussion on, this matter...we will need to define what is to be compared. So, sure, lets compare ms-access forms against the Forms tools in Oracle....I have no probelm with that...

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
http://www.attcanada.net/~kallal.msn


All you're saying is that some software products have more of the "parts"
needed to build a database and other software products don't have enough.
If we're talking about a "total solution" database product, meaning a bundle
of files that when used in various combinations produces a finished product
everybody recognizes as a "database," or maybe more accurately as a
"database application," then Access beats all the other products you
mentioned. It has form objects to input data, table objects to store data,
report objects to output data, and various other objects to manipulate,
relate, and maintain data. (Okay so it has no security!)

The original poster IMPLIED that Access and Oracle were interchangeable
products--that either could be used to build a total database solution,
which of course is not true, as you pointed out. I don't take exception to
that. The implied comparison is obviously faulty.

But I do take exception to the idea that Access should be "deconstructed"
and its parts compared to the parts of other database products, which is
what you seem to be saying. Under your analysis, Access is essentially a
product for developing front ends, i.e., the user objects. That's wrong.
It's a product for developing total database solutions, no matter if those
solutions come with a crappy little four-cylinder engine. Oracle or SQL
Server, to the contrary, are not total database solutions, although they
have monster engines, to extend the metaphor.

So if we want to compare parts, then Access will win some comparisons and
Oracle or SQL Server will win other comparisons. But if we're talking about
a total database solution as the definition of a "database," then Oracle or
SQL Server are not even in the running.

I understand what you're getting at, that Access is seen by most
professional database developers (and by Microsoft to some extent) as merely
an IDE for making front ends for use with some other back end, what you call
a "client development tool." But that assertion, while fairly accurate, is
also somewhat misleading because client development tools generally produce
standalone programs (executables).

Off topic, I will also say this. Access has become the bastard child of
Microsoft. The company would disown it if it could because there's almost
no market for a "desktop database" these days, which is what Access was
originally designed to be. Now, nearly everybody has at least a little LAN
running and a server someplace that could easily accommodate a 5- or 10-
client license SQL Server setup. Access needs to be folded into SQL Server
and disappear from the face of the earth.

Nov 13 '05 #7

P: n/a
"XMVP" <ac***********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Zc********************@vnet-inc.com:
All you're saying is that some software products have more of the
"parts" needed to build a database and other software products don't
have enough. If we're talking about a "total solution" database product,
meaning a bundle of files that when used in various combinations
produces a finished product everybody recognizes as a "database," or
maybe more accurately as a "database application," then Access beats all
the other products you mentioned. It has form objects to input data,
table objects to store data, report objects to output data, and various
other objects to manipulate, relate, and maintain data. (Okay so it has
no security!)

The original poster IMPLIED that Access and Oracle were interchangeable
products--that either could be used to build a total database solution,
which of course is not true, as you pointed out. I don't take exception
to that. The implied comparison is obviously faulty.

But I do take exception to the idea that Access should be
"deconstructed" and its parts compared to the parts of other database
products, which is what you seem to be saying. Under your analysis,
Access is essentially a product for developing front ends, i.e., the
user objects. That's wrong. It's a product for developing total
database solutions, no matter if those solutions come with a crappy
little four-cylinder engine. Oracle or SQL Server, to the contrary, are
not total database solutions, although they have monster engines, to
extend the metaphor.

So if we want to compare parts, then Access will win some comparisons
and Oracle or SQL Server will win other comparisons. But if we're
talking about a total database solution as the definition of a
"database," then Oracle or SQL Server are not even in the running.

I understand what you're getting at, that Access is seen by most
professional database developers (and by Microsoft to some extent) as
merely an IDE for making front ends for use with some other back end,
what you call a "client development tool." But that assertion, while
fairly accurate, is also somewhat misleading because client development
tools generally produce standalone programs (executables).

Off topic, I will also say this. Access has become the bastard child of
Microsoft. The company would disown it if it could because there's
almost no market for a "desktop database" these days, which is what
Access was originally designed to be. Now, nearly everybody has at
least a little LAN running and a server someplace that could easily
accommodate a 5- or 10- client license SQL Server setup. Access needs
to be folded into SQL Server and disappear from the face of the earth.


There are some interesting points here; the portraying and championing of
Access as Gestalt hadn't occurred to me previously.

More like this, please, Don.
--
Lyle
--
use iso date format: yyyy-mm-dd
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/iso-date
--
The e-mail address isn't, but you could use it to find one.
Nov 13 '05 #8

P: n/a
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 10:29:40 -0600, "XMVP" <ac***********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>

Off topic, I will also say this. Access has become the bastard child of
Microsoft. The company would disown it if it could because there's almost
no market for a "desktop database" these days, which is what Access was
originally designed to be. Now, nearly everybody has at least a little LAN
running and a server someplace that could easily accommodate a 5- or 10-
client license SQL Server setup. Access needs to be folded into SQL Server
and disappear from the face of the earth.
There are still numerous systems that are better served with a
"desktop database" then requiring a SQL Server.

Steven



Nov 13 '05 #9

P: n/a

"Steve" <st***@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:41****************@news.westnet.com...
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 10:29:40 -0600, "XMVP" <ac***********@hotmail.com>
There are still numerous systems that are better served with a
"desktop database" then requiring a SQL Server.


I can't think of any such systems, unless you're talking about a one-desktop
"system" with no future. But that's hypocritical of me to say that because
I actually own two "systems" that are only one computer each, neither of
which has any future, except moving to the garage. Yes, I have two desktop
machines both running SQL Server 2000. (I also have a full-blown
client-server system to emulate my customers' systems.) But it's still a
little devious of me to suggest SQL Server for all situations whatsoever
because I've never shelled out a dime for SQL Server! Okay. Maybe I've
paid for it indirectly in the price of developer editions, but the cost is
really insignificant compared to the what the commercial version costs.

If we're NOT talking about Joey's baseball card collection, or Millie's
basement basket-weaving business, then we're talking about several machines
and a for-profit business. We're also talking about a small business that
will likely grow, i.e, the business will be adding machines (users) to the
system at fairly consistent rate.

In the REAL WORLD, which is a place where people actually have to pay for
Microsoft software and have to pay somebody to maintain it, SQL Server seems
like an expensive proposition at first. But as time goes by, and new
machines and even new locations are added to the system, the cost is easily
recovered. And all the while SQL Server never complains. It's the server
that keeps on serving!

[And please, no stories about Jet, the little engine that could.]
Nov 13 '05 #10

P: n/a
What the Heck, Donnie. Are you trying to enter into some
apparently-serious-about-databases-on-topic discussion to try to
rehabilitate yourself and your image?

If you want to rehabilitate yourself in this newsgroup, skip the
philosophical babble, stop your trolling, retire your sockpuppets, and go
answer some real questions (under your name instead of your "handle").

Larry Linson


Nov 13 '05 #11

P: n/a
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 14:03:39 -0600, "XMVP" <ac***********@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Steve" <st***@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:41****************@news.westnet.com...
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 10:29:40 -0600, "XMVP" <ac***********@hotmail.com>
There are still numerous systems that are better served with a
"desktop database" then requiring a SQL Server.


I can't think of any such systems, unless you're talking about a one-desktop
"system" with no future.


Just because you can't think of it, does not mean it does not exist.
But that's hypocritical of me to say that because
I actually own two "systems" that are only one computer each, neither of
which has any future, except moving to the garage. Yes, I have two desktop
machines both running SQL Server 2000. (I also have a full-blown
client-server system to emulate my customers' systems.) But it's still a
little devious of me to suggest SQL Server for all situations whatsoever
because I've never shelled out a dime for SQL Server! Okay. Maybe I've
paid for it indirectly in the price of developer editions, but the cost is
really insignificant compared to the what the commercial version costs.

I really don't see what your limited hardware situation has to do with
the future life of desktop databases.
If we're NOT talking about Joey's baseball card collection, or Millie's
basement basket-weaving business, then we're talking about several machines
and a for-profit business. We're also talking about a small business that
will likely grow, i.e, the business will be adding machines (users) to the
system at fairly consistent rate.
I am not talking about your clients either. However, speaking about
small businesses, products like QuickBooks are perfect examples of
productive tools using "desktop" databases.

Of course, you also have information being distributed in databases
which is best sent in a common database format (e.g. MDB or DBF). I
really don't want to set-up a SQL Server to access such information,
even though I have several servers in my office which are more than
capable of handling the task.

And then you have applications where the user wants to jump between
different, distinct databases (e.g. like QuickBooks), and quickly copy
one of the databases to a laptop, etc ... We are currently working on
such an application now.

In the REAL WORLD, which is a place where people actually have to pay for
Microsoft software and have to pay somebody to maintain it, SQL Server seems
like an expensive proposition at first.
SQL Server is not expensive. Price is not the issue.

But as time goes by, and new
machines and even new locations are added to the system, the cost is easily
recovered. And all the while SQL Server never complains. It's the server
that keeps on serving!

You focusing on certain types of applications only, for which I agree
with you regarding SQL Server. But not all databases require
multi-user, secured, client-server access; and some even are hindered
by such.

Ironically,my server tape backup system uses SQL Server to store the
detail results of its backup. So, it loaded SQL Server on my main
file server for this trival tasks. Stupid.

[And please, no stories about Jet, the little engine that could.]


Jet is a brilliant desktop engine that serves many purposes. Just
because some have pushed it too far, or do not understand its
limitations, does not make it a poor engine.

Of course, this discussion will become mute as the next version of
Windows includes SQL Server.

Steven
Nov 13 '05 #12

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.