By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
448,535 Members | 888 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 448,535 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Access vs SQL

P: n/a
Hello All,

I've been developing a VB.NET app that requires the use of a DB. Up to now,
I've been using Access. It's a bit slow, but everything works. I'm at a
point now where I need to decide if I should stay with Access or move the DB
to SQL. I'm trying to come up with a list of Pros/Cons for such a move. My
list is a bit lopsided, as I have very little experience with SQL and quite
a bit with Access.

PROS for moving to SQL:
Increased Performance?
Increased Reliability?
Lifecycle of Access?
Future Access Version compatibility issues?

CONS for moving to SQL:
My limited knowledge of SQL
Clients not required to have an SQL server

I've added a few items to the PROS list, but with ?s, as I don't really
know.

If there are a few Access advocates and SQL advocates out there that could
give me some viewpoints, I'd be more comfortable making a decision based on
the facts, rather than my limited knowledge.

TIA
Lee

Nov 21 '05
Share this Question
Share on Google+
70 Replies


P: n/a
Uh, no it's not what you said at all. And, most importantly, if you read
this documentation you will see that the terms MS Access and JET are NOT
used interchangeably. In fact, throughout the article, Access is referred
to as the "Microsoft Access user interface".
"Paul Clement" <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote in message
news:re********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:19:48 -0400, "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam>
wrote:

¤ From:
¤
¤
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d.../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++®. "
¤

Isn't that kind of what I said?

Do we now want to count the number of times the phrase "Jet database" and
"Access database" are used
interchangeably? Not much point is there. ;-)
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Nov 21 '05 #51

P: n/a
¤ Tell me, what is the connection string in ADO or ADO.NET to connect to an
¤ .mdb file?

oConn.Open "Driver={Microsoft Access Driver (*.mdb)};" & _
"Dbq=c:\somepath\mydb.mdb;" & _
"Uid=admin;" & _
"Pwd="
What you've shown here is what driver to use. Drivers are yet another way
to "wrap" the actual functionality of connecting to the data source. You
are supplying a "satisfactory" connection string, while the actual DB
provider is "Microsoft.OLEDB.JET.n.x" as seen in the more commonly used:

Con.Open "Provider=Microsoft.JET.OLEDB.4.0.;Data Source=path"

¤ Tell me, what is the only kind of data that DAO can connect to?
¤

DAO can connect to any number of database types including Microsoft Access
and ODBC supported
databases such as SQL Server and Oracle and ISAM databases such as xBase,
Excel, Paradox etc.


Actually it's true, I mis-spoke, DAO does support more than just Access,
however if you read the article I posted the link to, you will see this:

"You can use the ODBCDirect object hierarchy to work with ODBC data sources
without going through the Jet database engine."

So, when you use ODBC, you are not connecting to a JET database. But, when
you do use JET in DAO, you are now limited to JET databases (not SQL,
Oracle, etc.).

It's also interesting that in VB 6.0, if you make a Data Project and get
into the connection's properties and look at the OLEDB providers, you don't
see one for Access. What you do see is JET. And, if you select JET and
then move on to select the corresponding database, it is even more
interesting that the dialong box used to browse for these databases has only
one file type that it is filtering on - - .mdb.

The minutia of this thread has all but worn me out Paul. Read the article I
posted and you will see that your argument holds up on a very high level,
but not at the lower levels. There's nothing more I can say.
Nov 21 '05 #52

P: n/a
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:44:44 -0400, "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:

¤ ¤ Tell me, what is the connection string in ADO or ADO.NET to connect to an
¤ ¤ .mdb file?
¤ >
¤ > oConn.Open "Driver={Microsoft Access Driver (*.mdb)};" & _
¤ > "Dbq=c:\somepath\mydb.mdb;" & _
¤ > "Uid=admin;" & _
¤ > "Pwd="
¤
¤ What you've shown here is what driver to use. Drivers are yet another way
¤ to "wrap" the actual functionality of connecting to the data source. You
¤ are supplying a "satisfactory" connection string, while the actual DB
¤ provider is "Microsoft.OLEDB.JET.n.x" as seen in the more commonly used:
¤
¤ Con.Open "Provider=Microsoft.JET.OLEDB.4.0.;Data Source=path"
¤

Yes, but there isn't much point to this. The only reason that I posted that
connection string, which I don't recommend using, is to point out that both
Access and Jet can be used interchangeably. There is no right or wrong.

But the key point is that the Jet Database Engine is a subset of the Microsoft
Access application and that it does not have full control over all objects and
data stored in a Microsoft Access database. Only the Access application has this
capability whether it's via the Jet Database Engine or directly through the
Access application code.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Nov 21 '05 #53

P: n/a
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:26:23 -0400, "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:

¤ Uh, no it's not what you said at all. And, most importantly, if you read
¤ this documentation you will see that the terms MS Access and JET are NOT
¤ used interchangeably. In fact, throughout the article, Access is referred
¤ to as the "Microsoft Access user interface".
¤

Yes, but in other articles and documentation it is not.

http://tinyurl.com/6acob
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Nov 21 '05 #54

P: n/a
That's because the "other" articles you refer to aren't discussing the
low-level architecture of what is actually storing the data in Access.

As I've said, in many situations the term "Access Database" is just fine to
convey the meaning of what you are trying to say. What we are discussing is
completely different than those high level discussions (such as the ones
returned by your search).

Just because I use 2 words interchangeable doesn't mean that they are the
same thing technically. For example, in the OO world, the terms "object"
and "class" are often interchanged and for many discussions that's fine.
But there is a world of difference between what an "object" actually is vs.
what a "class" actually is.

The article I've provided is specifically about the low-level understanding
of what JET actually is and it's relationship to Access.

"Paul Clement" <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote in message
news:tt********************************@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:26:23 -0400, "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam>
wrote:

¤ Uh, no it's not what you said at all. And, most importantly, if you read
¤ this documentation you will see that the terms MS Access and JET are NOT
¤ used interchangeably. In fact, throughout the article, Access is
referred
¤ to as the "Microsoft Access user interface".
¤

Yes, but in other articles and documentation it is not.

http://tinyurl.com/6acob
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Nov 21 '05 #55

P: n/a
> Yes, but there isn't much point to this. The only reason that I posted
that
connection string, which I don't recommend using, is to point out that
both
Access and Jet can be used interchangeably. There is no right or wrong.
I agree that there is no right or wrong (although I too don't recommend the
the Access driver version). I also don't disagree that in *many* cases what
we are discussing is minutia and makes little difference. But, when you
start peeling back the layers of the Access product, you must begin to
separate the Access software product from the actual data store.
But the key point is that the Jet Database Engine is a subset of the
Microsoft
Access application and that it does not have full control over all objects
and
data stored in a Microsoft Access database. Only the Access application
has this
capability whether it's via the Jet Database Engine or directly through
the
Access application code.


Again, what you say is not in dispute, but needs further clarification. The
Access product does store additional information that JET does not (reports,
queries, forms, etc.) and an .mdb file is a file that holds the cumulative
data (the JET database as well as the proprietary Access information).
However, the main point I'm trying to drive home here is that the DATA
itself (not the forms, reports, queries, etc. that compliment the data) is
stored in a JET Database that MS Access simply wraps and extends. The
result is placed into an .mdb file. In this context, JET and Access are not
the same thing.
Nov 21 '05 #56

P: n/a
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:33:58 -0400, "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:

¤ That's because the "other" articles you refer to aren't discussing the
¤ low-level architecture of what is actually storing the data in Access.
¤

What's the point? Access also can make database level modifications w/o Jet. The Jet Database Engine
does not completely define the architecture of an Access database. In any event, there would be no
Jet Database Engine w/o Access since that is the application from which it originated.

¤ As I've said, in many situations the term "Access Database" is just fine to
¤ convey the meaning of what you are trying to say. What we are discussing is
¤ completely different than those high level discussions (such as the ones
¤ returned by your search).

No actually that was never the discussion. The discussion involved a response to
aa**********@yahoo.com who claimed that an .mdb file is not an Access file.

¤
¤ Just because I use 2 words interchangeable doesn't mean that they are the
¤ same thing technically. For example, in the OO world, the terms "object"
¤ and "class" are often interchanged and for many discussions that's fine.
¤ But there is a world of difference between what an "object" actually is vs.
¤ what a "class" actually is.
¤
¤ The article I've provided is specifically about the low-level understanding
¤ of what JET actually is and it's relationship to Access.

Don't think I follow where you are going with this.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Nov 21 '05 #57

P: n/a
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:10:57 -0400, "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:
¤ > But the key point is that the Jet Database Engine is a subset of the
¤ > Microsoft
¤ > Access application and that it does not have full control over all objects
¤ > and
¤ > data stored in a Microsoft Access database. Only the Access application
¤ > has this
¤ > capability whether it's via the Jet Database Engine or directly through
¤ > the
¤ > Access application code.
¤
¤ Again, what you say is not in dispute, but needs further clarification. The
¤ Access product does store additional information that JET does not (reports,
¤ queries, forms, etc.) and an .mdb file is a file that holds the cumulative
¤ data (the JET database as well as the proprietary Access information).
¤ However, the main point I'm trying to drive home here is that the DATA
¤ itself (not the forms, reports, queries, etc. that compliment the data) is
¤ stored in a JET Database that MS Access simply wraps and extends. The
¤ result is placed into an .mdb file. In this context, JET and Access are not
¤ the same thing.
¤

Nobody said they were. All that was stated is that the terms Jet and Access may both be used to
describe an Access database. But at the risk of repeating myself, the Access application is the only
one of the two that has full control over an .mdb file. The Jet Database Engine was created for
Microsoft Access and extended so that other development platforms could use it.

The next thing you know, well be arguing over whether to call Word and Excel documents "OLE
Structured Storage" files - because that is the underlying technology used. ;-)
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Nov 21 '05 #58

P: n/a
> ¤ As I've said, in many situations the term "Access Database" is just fine
to
¤ convey the meaning of what you are trying to say. What we are
discussing is
¤ completely different than those high level discussions (such as the ones
¤ returned by your search).

No actually that was never the discussion. The discussion involved a
response to
aa**********@yahoo.com who claimed that an .mdb file is not an Access
file.
No actually here is what aa**********@yahoo.com said:

"Access is *not* a database."

He didn't say that an .mdb is not an Access file. My comments here and
earlier have been part of the discussion..

Is Access = database or is .mdb=database?

Most of the time and in most situations it's fine to say yes beacuse we all
know what is trying to be said. But at low-levels it isn't correct to say
that Access is the database and the .mdb is the database. Access is a GUI
to BOTH the raw data as well as Access-specific data (reports, forms, VBA,
etc.). The raw data is stored in the JET database, which Access wraps.
¤ Just because I use 2 words interchangeable doesn't mean that they are
the
¤ same thing technically. For example, in the OO world, the terms
"object"
¤ and "class" are often interchanged and for many discussions that's fine.
¤ But there is a world of difference between what an "object" actually is
vs.
¤ what a "class" actually is.
¤
¤ The article I've provided is specifically about the low-level
understanding
¤ of what JET actually is and it's relationship to Access.

Don't think I follow where you are going with this.


Hmmm, the same place I've been all along :). Did you read the article?
Nov 21 '05 #59

P: n/a
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:10:38 -0400, "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:

¤ > ¤ As I've said, in many situations the term "Access Database" is just fine
¤ > to
¤ > ¤ convey the meaning of what you are trying to say. What we are
¤ > discussing is
¤ > ¤ completely different than those high level discussions (such as the ones
¤ > ¤ returned by your search).
¤ >
¤ > No actually that was never the discussion. The discussion involved a
¤ > response to
¤ > aa**********@yahoo.com who claimed that an .mdb file is not an Access
¤ > file.
¤
¤ No actually here is what aa**********@yahoo.com said:
¤
¤ "Access is *not* a database."
¤
¤ He didn't say that an .mdb is not an Access file. My comments here and
¤ earlier have been part of the discussion..

Yes he did:

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).
<<
¤ Most of the time and in most situations it's fine to say yes beacuse we all
¤ know what is trying to be said. But at low-levels it isn't correct to say
¤ that Access is the database and the .mdb is the database. Access is a GUI
¤ to BOTH the raw data as well as Access-specific data (reports, forms, VBA,
¤ etc.). The raw data is stored in the JET database, which Access wraps.
¤

For the last time...Access can operate on the database file directly. It is not a wrapper. Does Word
wrap a .doc file? Does Excel wrap an .xls file?

As I questioned in my other post, do we now call .doc and .xls OLE Structure Storage files instead
of Word and Excel files because that is the API which is employed?

¤ > ¤ Just because I use 2 words interchangeable doesn't mean that they are
¤ > the
¤ > ¤ same thing technically. For example, in the OO world, the terms
¤ > "object"
¤ > ¤ and "class" are often interchanged and for many discussions that's fine.
¤ > ¤ But there is a world of difference between what an "object" actually is
¤ > vs.
¤ > ¤ what a "class" actually is.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ The article I've provided is specifically about the low-level
¤ > understanding
¤ > ¤ of what JET actually is and it's relationship to Access.
¤ >
¤ > Don't think I follow where you are going with this.
¤
¤ Hmmm, the same place I've been all along :). Did you read the article?
¤

You may want to consider other sources beyond that article. Especially if you're simply going to
ignore the fact that the Jet Database Engine provides only a subset of the functionality that is
supported for an Access database. That is a technical fact that cannot be disputed.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Nov 21 '05 #60

P: n/a
> ¤ No actually here is what aa**********@yahoo.com said:
¤
¤ "Access is *not* a database."
¤
¤ He didn't say that an .mdb is not an Access file. My comments here and
¤ earlier have been part of the discussion..

Yes he did:
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).
<<


My comments have all pertained to the "Access is *not* a database" remark.
For the last time...Access can operate on the database file directly. It
is not a wrapper.
Well, for the last time, yes Access does wrap the JET data and provides a UI
to that JET data. Microsoft say so much in the article I've provided.
Does Word wrap a .doc file? Does Excel wrap an .xls file?
Your comments keep coming back to does the product wrap it's own file
extension format file. I have not framed my comments in this way, so I
don't believe we are discussing the same thing. As I've said over and over:
Access's .mdb file format contains a JET database as well as Access specific
items. In this way, Access wraps the JET database. This is the reason you
can programmatically connect to an .mdb file and use the JET database
contained within it with standard JET DAO's.
As I questioned in my other post, do we now call .doc and .xls OLE
Structure Storage files instead
of Word and Excel files because that is the API which is employed?
I don't know. Do we? My point has been all along, that most of the time
(99.9%), you can call it whatever you like. But when splitting hairs, you
should call it what it is. Now, is OLE a data storage paradigm? No, it is
a broad term regarding a set of interfaces that some object needs to provide
to be OLE compliant. An apple can be bitten into and so can a bananna, but
that doesn't make them both apples.
You may want to consider other sources beyond that article. Especially if
you're simply going to
ignore the fact that the Jet Database Engine provides only a subset of the
functionality that is
supported for an Access database. That is a technical fact that cannot be
disputed.


You're absolutely correct and it has been my point all along! I haven't
been ignoring this, it's been what I've been saying. An Access file
contains a JET database as well as other Access-specific items and wraps it
all up into an .mdb. The article is Microsoft's documentation on JET. What
better article is there to discuss JET?
Nov 21 '05 #61

P: n/a
Scott,
An apple can be bitten into and so can a bananna, but that doesn't make
them both apples.


Exactly they both are fruit. Access is not SQL server however they both
provide the developer database facilities, although there is maybe as much
difference in that as in a banana and an apple.

However that does not stop by that, using the Jet facilities you can use as
well an Excell spreadsheet as a database.

I think that you did describe it with this very well.

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #62

P: n/a
Way to change the topic into something it's not Cor!

My question wasn't "are they both fruit", my question was "are they both
apples". I'm a human and so are you, but we are not both the SAME human.
You've taken something I've written out of context and gone on to write
about something very different from what I'm talking about (again, as
usual).
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Scott,
An apple can be bitten into and so can a bananna, but that doesn't make
them both apples.


Exactly they both are fruit. Access is not SQL server however they both
provide the developer database facilities, although there is maybe as much
difference in that as in a banana and an apple.

However that does not stop by that, using the Jet facilities you can use
as well an Excell spreadsheet as a database.

I think that you did describe it with this very well.

Cor

Nov 21 '05 #63

P: n/a
Scott,

Somebody acting in this business would never ask if "true" can be the same
as "false". However, it are both conditions that can exist.

When you ask if an apple is not a banana (I assume that is what you mean
with what you wrote as bananna, because I don't know that word in English),
I answered you that they are both fruit.

However better than answering you directly on the question if Access is a
database, I can show you this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #64

P: n/a
And, again you are answering questions that were never asked.

I'm sorry Cor, I have no more time to waste on you.

"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:eF*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Scott,

Somebody acting in this business would never ask if "true" can be the same
as "false". However, it are both conditions that can exist.

When you ask if an apple is not a banana (I assume that is what you mean
with what you wrote as bananna, because I don't know that word in
English), I answered you that they are both fruit.

However better than answering you directly on the question if Access is a
database, I can show you this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database

Cor

Nov 21 '05 #65

P: n/a
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:45:01 -0400, "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:

¤ > ¤ No actually here is what aa**********@yahoo.com said:
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ "Access is *not* a database."
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ He didn't say that an .mdb is not an Access file. My comments here and
¤ > ¤ earlier have been part of the discussion..
¤ >
¤ > Yes he did:
¤ >
¤ >>>
¤ > 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).
¤ > <<
¤
¤ My comments have all pertained to the "Access is *not* a database" remark.
¤

Mine didn't. Access is an application that operates upon Access databases. An .mdb file is a
legitimate native file type that is specific to this the program.

¤ > For the last time...Access can operate on the database file directly. It
¤ > is not a wrapper.
¤
¤ Well, for the last time, yes Access does wrap the JET data and provides a UI
¤ to that JET data. Microsoft say so much in the article I've provided.
¤

It's not a wrapper. It makes calls to a database engine API in order to perform certain database
operations to support functionality supported by the application. It also makes calls directly to
the database - there is no wrapping involved.

DAO is a wrapper which exposes Jet functionality. Access is not.

¤ >Does Word wrap a .doc file? Does Excel wrap an .xls file?
¤
¤ Your comments keep coming back to does the product wrap it's own file
¤ extension format file. I have not framed my comments in this way, so I
¤ don't believe we are discussing the same thing. As I've said over and over:
¤ Access's .mdb file format contains a JET database as well as Access specific
¤ items. In this way, Access wraps the JET database. This is the reason you
¤ can programmatically connect to an .mdb file and use the JET database
¤ contained within it with standard JET DAO's.
¤

Nope. Access can use DAO, but it also has integrated database functionality. It has to in order to
support certain features such as executing VBA code routines used in SQL or Access QueryDefs. Jet
does not support this feature.

¤ > As I questioned in my other post, do we now call .doc and .xls OLE
¤ > Structure Storage files instead
¤ > of Word and Excel files because that is the API which is employed?
¤
¤ I don't know. Do we? My point has been all along, that most of the time
¤ (99.9%), you can call it whatever you like. But when splitting hairs, you
¤ should call it what it is. Now, is OLE a data storage paradigm? No, it is
¤ a broad term regarding a set of interfaces that some object needs to provide
¤ to be OLE compliant. An apple can be bitten into and so can a bananna, but
¤ that doesn't make them both apples.
¤

No, it is an API and data storage mechanism just as Jet is.

¤ > You may want to consider other sources beyond that article. Especially if
¤ > you're simply going to
¤ > ignore the fact that the Jet Database Engine provides only a subset of the
¤ > functionality that is
¤ > supported for an Access database. That is a technical fact that cannot be
¤ > disputed.
¤
¤ You're absolutely correct and it has been my point all along! I haven't
¤ been ignoring this, it's been what I've been saying. An Access file
¤ contains a JET database as well as other Access-specific items and wraps it
¤ all up into an .mdb. The article is Microsoft's documentation on JET. What
¤ better article is there to discuss JET?
¤

Access neither wraps nor contains a database.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Nov 21 '05 #66

P: n/a
It's not a wrapper. It makes calls to a database engine API in order to
perform certain database
operations to support functionality supported by the application. It also
makes calls directly to
the database - there is no wrapping involved.
Well, I guess we've finally come to it. JET is not an API. JET is the
database type. If you would just READ the Microsoft documentation on JET we
wouldn't be going round and round on this.
DAO is a wrapper which exposes Jet functionality. Access is not.
No, once again you have it backwards. DAO is an API, Access is a wrapper of
JET.
No, it is an API and data storage mechanism just as Jet is.
So, now you admit that JET is a data storage mechanism...you mean like ....
a DATABASE?
Access neither wraps nor contains a database.


And now you are saying that Access doesn't even contain a database? Hmmm.

Hey, good luck to you. This sub-thread was always a matter of splitting
hairs and I don't have too many left to split. I can't help if you won't
even read the specs.
Nov 21 '05 #67

P: n/a
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:43:06 -0400, "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:

¤
¤ > It's not a wrapper. It makes calls to a database engine API in order to
¤ > perform certain database
¤ > operations to support functionality supported by the application. It also
¤ > makes calls directly to
¤ > the database - there is no wrapping involved.
¤
¤ Well, I guess we've finally come to it. JET is not an API. JET is the
¤ database type. If you would just READ the Microsoft documentation on JET we
¤ wouldn't be going round and round on this.
¤

Yes, Jet is an API. Microsoft does not publicly disclose

¤ > DAO is a wrapper which exposes Jet functionality. Access is not.
¤
¤ No, once again you have it backwards. DAO is an API, Access is a wrapper of
¤ JET.
¤
¤ > No, it is an API and data storage mechanism just as Jet is.
¤
¤ So, now you admit that JET is a data storage mechanism...you mean like ....
¤ a DATABASE?
¤
¤ > Access neither wraps nor contains a database.
¤
¤ And now you are saying that Access doesn't even contain a database? Hmmm.
¤
¤ Hey, good luck to you. This sub-thread was always a matter of splitting
¤ hairs and I don't have too many left to split. I can't help if you won't
¤ even read the specs.
¤

Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Nov 21 '05 #68

P: n/a
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:43:06 -0400, "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:

¤
¤ > It's not a wrapper. It makes calls to a database engine API in order to
¤ > perform certain database
¤ > operations to support functionality supported by the application. It also
¤ > makes calls directly to
¤ > the database - there is no wrapping involved.
¤
¤ Well, I guess we've finally come to it. JET is not an API. JET is the
¤ database type. If you would just READ the Microsoft documentation on JET we
¤ wouldn't be going round and round on this.
¤

Don't believe everything you read and don't read into everything you believe.

Jet *is* an API that is not publicly disclosed by Microsoft.

¤ > DAO is a wrapper which exposes Jet functionality. Access is not.
¤
¤ No, once again you have it backwards. DAO is an API, Access is a wrapper of
¤ JET.
¤

DAO is also an API - it's a COM based API.

¤ > No, it is an API and data storage mechanism just as Jet is.
¤
¤ So, now you admit that JET is a data storage mechanism...you mean like ....
¤ a DATABASE?
¤
¤ > Access neither wraps nor contains a database.
¤
¤ And now you are saying that Access doesn't even contain a database? Hmmm.
¤

Right. There is no containing. It's file I/O between the application and the
database.

¤ Hey, good luck to you. This sub-thread was always a matter of splitting
¤ hairs and I don't have too many left to split. I can't help if you won't
¤ even read the specs.
¤

I appreciate your concern and thanks for sharing your knowledge Scott. But I've
worked with Access for over a decade now and I'm fairly confident that those I
talk to at Microsoft know their product. ;-)
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Nov 21 '05 #69

P: n/a
Scott,
However better than answering you directly on the question if Access is a
database, I can show you this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database
And, again you are answering questions that were never asked.

I'm sorry Cor, I have no more time to waste on you.

I know that you think that you are a superior person. You have often showed
that in these newsgroups. However, I wished that the content of your answers
are superior and not exist consequently from telling that somebody write not
good English or statements as above when somebody proofs you'r wrong.

About that English by the way, you write yourself sentences like beneath.
Maybe is it better that you first start learning to write good English
before you do those statements.
Your comments keep coming back to does the product wrap it's own file.

The way of your superiority style comes back in a sentence on Wikipidi, that
I showed you in my last message what is completely on topic of this thread.
However, probably not even opened by you.

From Wikipidi

(The terms database and database management system are sometimes
interchanged by students. In the professional argot, a database is always
the collection of facts, not the software program.)

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #70

P: n/a
Scott,

In my opinion is your problem that you have to short knowledge and start
writing.

For 90% of the Dutch speaking people (from the Netherlands, Belgium and
Suriname) (those 10% are the elder ones)speaks as well English. It is in the
Netherlands a second natural language (I write this not for Belgium and
Suriname because in those countries are official second natural languages,
however there it is probably the same). Most children in the Netherlands can
understand, speak, and read English when they are about 12.

As I once heard on BBC (That is the British Broad Casting Organization)
where is spoken in my opinion real good English, telling that the Dutch
English an English Dialect.

However, most of us do normally seldom write in English, so that goes mostly
with a lot of errors especially when we start or start again with it.

Maybe strange for you, however read next time something before you start
writing.

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #71

70 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.