Software

RE: Low-cost databases?

tclaremont — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:29:00 GMT

SQL Server Express Edition is free, and therefore might be worthy of serious consideration, too.

We used the Express Edition for about a year on one of our projects, and then made the move to the full version once the database got to over one gigabyte. The transition was nearly seamless. Even with nearly a million records in the database and as many as 30 concurrent users the performance was quite good.

RE: Low-cost databases?

sophiakelly — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 05:14:00 GMT

What will work best depends on whether you want to develop one or use one which already exists, and what you want to do with it.

In other words, keeping in mind the big picture and the long term, if you don't need anything terribly complicated, you might want to keep it simple.

If, for example, your database it's just for managing contacts or storing a small amount of data, some of the office software you might already have might do, such as Outlook (for contacts and activities related to them, plus some simple but flexible reporting) or excel (for lower numbers of records and low complexity of data.- ie: a flat file rather than relational database)

An advantage of going 'lower tech' where appropriate (don't jump down my neck here - there is definitely a place for access, sql and other databases, and I've been designing them for nonprofits for over a decade) is that your users will already know how to use it, and will (hopefully) require less training and support.

As well, again depending on your needs, sometimes your webmail system (such as horde) or other web platforms/applications you might already be using (such as webgui or yahoogroups) have built-in simple databases for storing basic data.

Sincerely,
Sophia Kelly
www.sophiakelly.ca

RE: MS-Access - multi-user - Vista solution found

Neumans2000 — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:02:00 GMT

On moving a MS-Access DB from XP to Vista only two
PC-s of the five PC-s could connect to the DB at once.
After two unusal fixes, creating a c:\temp directory,
MS hotfix KB935366, failing; the third fix worked.
This was on the client machines updating the shortcut
to the database to include a path to the local PC’s
MS-Access exec file. i.e. the target would be
“c:\programs\microsoft\office11\msaccess.exe
h:\database.mdb”.

RE: Low-cost databases?

donc — Sun, 06 May 2007 00:02:00 GMT

anyone else downloading the executable file would have a clue

You can change the D/L location by simply entering a new path when prompted - and considering the content is designed for developers, it's a fair assumption that most developers recognise 'default.htm' as the proper starting point probably don't need shortcuts to find their way around their computers... but good points to raise!

Maybe it was not for the aforementioned crowd because it was for the crowd that, though not yet on board with Microsoft's XP design philosophy, wanted to be?

It's always frustrating to find otherwise excellent databases or other programs that are so full of GUI design faults they become worthless from a user perspective - we see these all the time, and 'download.com' is littered with the remains of some great developments that failed through lack of recognition of one simple fact... It doesn't matter how feature-packed, how conceptually well researched and designed a database is... if it fails the usability test it is highly unlikely to ever prove successful.

RE: Low-cost databases?

Jesse — Sat, 05 May 2007 18:06:00 GMT

The number of files is not a problem, except that the executable extracts all the files, by default, to your temp directory, and the large number of files, with no telltale names and, as it turns out, several subdirectories, can be impossible to identify in that mix. So, with the information I provided, anyone else downloading the executable file would have a clue, before extracting the files, that the temp folder might not be a good place for them.

I don't know how you can say the XP design web pages are not for the "'Fresh, Desirable, Colorful and Simple' crowd" since the "philosophy" page says that is the design philosophy of XP, and this is a visual design guide for XP. Maybe it was not for the aforementioned crowd because it was for the crowd that, though not yet on board with Microsoft's XP design philosophy, wanted to be?

RE: Low-cost databases?

donc — Sat, 05 May 2007 01:18:00 GMT

> That link for XP GUI best practices give a 5MB executable, which unpacks in to ~ 130 files, mostly html, gif and jpg (snip)

Ummm, yes... is the number of files causing you problems? May be able to compress it all into a single non-executable file if it would help you...

The download referenced is a visal design guide provided for Windows application developers. It's not really for the novice or the 'Fresh, Desirable, Colorful and Simple' crowd - and a lot of people develop applications in Access - it's not just for databases.

Maybe it's not widely known but when Access is combined with runtime redistributable components, it is a full-blown application development platform - people have developed programs in Access for all types of purposes, including computer games! - The fact the Jet Engine, MS SQL or other database engines can be utilized by Access is just one of it's advantages.

RE: Low-cost databases?

Jesse — Fri, 04 May 2007 17:28:00 GMT

That link for XP GUI best practices give a 5MB executable, which unpacks in to ~ 130 files, mostly html, gif and jpg.

'philosophy.htm" says that this is what matters for XP:

Fresh
Desirable
Colorful
Simple

RE: Low-cost databases?

tclaremont — Fri, 04 May 2007 13:44:00 GMT

I second the recommendation for "Database Design For Mere Mortals". I bought my copy used on the most popular book store online, and it was under ten bucks. Even a single tip from that book, and it pays for itself. After 25 years in the field, I still learned a couple of new angles and ways to think about things.

Access is a double edged sword. It is intentionally designed to be easy to use, which allows it to capture a large part of the market. The problem is that it becomes easy to use it INCORRECTLY. Because of this, there are a lot of "Access Developers" that are NOT database developers.

Before picking up a book and teaching yourself Access, I would consider it REQUIRED READING to read a book on database design and theory.

Access is a tool to build databases that YOU DESIGN. A good database designer is more valuable to the equation than a good database tool.

A good analogy is painting a house. LOTS of people think it looks easy. LOTS of people think they can do it well. LOTS of people wind up with a paint job to looks 'OK' and then starts to chip and peel after a couple seasons of use.

As I stated in an earlier post, I am not a big fan of Access for MY purposes, but if you ARE going to use Access, doing it right from the ground up will allow you to scale up to SQL Server or the database of your choosing if and when the time comes.

RE: Low-cost databases?

donc — Fri, 04 May 2007 02:49:00 GMT

There are some highly valuable points coming out of this - thanks everyone!

Another problem I often find with database designs in general (not just Access) is the matter of the graphical user interface (GUI). Some developers are excellent and do follow recognised best practice when building a database GUI (example of GUI best-practice design concepts for Windows applications can be found here)...

However many developers choose to ignore basic good design concepts (maybe because they think they can do better!) and seemingly do their best to bamboozle users with an array of buttons, form fields and other elements that appear to be just dropped at will onto the database form. A database is only 'good', if the database is able to be used! The best database GUI is that which is so intuitive that it's just another application with familiar menu's and commands.

RE: Low-cost databases?

dianejamail — Fri, 04 May 2007 00:42:00 GMT

Thank you Margaret. I have been an independent Access/ VBA consultant and most of my jobs have been to come in and clean up a project started by an inexperienced Access developer that is no longer available. The biggest problem I see is that most people who say they know Access do not understand relational database theory and they set up the table structures incorrectly and end up "painting themselves into a hole." I would recommend a book called "Database Design for Mere Mortals" by Micheal Hernandez to anyone before thet set off to create a database with MS Access or MySQL or what ever database you choose.
By the way I also teach MS Access at for the United Way's Management Assistance Program in Houston, TX

RE: Low-cost databases?

MargaretBartley — Wed, 02 May 2007 02:50:00 GMT

I think Access is a great database for non-profits that do not want to spend thousands of dollars for a database.

It's easy to use, and there is a huge base of experienced Access users.

The main caution I would say, though, is that it is very easy to find people who say they know Access, and can do a little bit, but really, they don't understand it very well.

Like all Microsoft products, it is very easy to become productive, but there is a huge back end that will do amazing thngs, if you know how to use it.

The wizards are the lowest common denominator in the development world. You can do just about anything with a wizard, but it will be cludgey and really inefficient.

I have seen so many Access databases that were set up by people who did not know what they were doing.

The problem is, if you don't know Access, you will not be able to assess if the person you are bringing aboard knows Access, either!

And the people who are the weakest developers are the ones who are the biggest prima donnas, about not having anyone look at what they are doing, because they know they are taking the long way to do things.

It wouldn't hurt to find someone who knows Access and have them go over your database, after you've been using it for a year or so, and ask for suggestions, and maybe bring them in for a hour or two's training, if it's needed with your developer.

Most things in Access take only a little bit of knowledge. It's just that there are 10,000 things to know.

RE: Low-cost databases?

ChiefApricot — Tue, 01 May 2007 12:43:00 GMT

First, I cast another vote for dabbledb - really nice product.
Second, I hope it is OK to mention our own product - it definitely fits into the category of low-cost databases. It is kind of like dabbleDB but it is specifically for non-profits constituents databases while dabbleDB can be used for any kind of database whatsoever.
Wild Apricot is a web-based member database primarily for associations, societies, clubs and other non-profits. It costs from $12/month including website hosting and handles constituents database, event registration and other stuff.
Finally on the topic of MS Access... Great database but I have seen so many problems with data corruption in multi-user scenarios... Maybe it has gotten way better than it was, but I would be scared of using it for multiple users.

RE: Low-cost databases?

shipley.c — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:54:00 GMT

Heh, yep. Definitely sold on it. :) Not to fit every need, though. MS Access is a fine database and its cost is very reasonable considering the breaks NPOs get from Microsoft. So is SQL, depending on the scope. but Access is a good all-round, all-inclusive tool that doesn't require additional software purchase to report or build interface screens. Even has nifty wizards to help people along.

RE: Low-cost databases?

donc — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:39:00 GMT

Sounds like you're sold on it Chris and I hope it works well for you.

I would always be cautious of an ASP model database... what happens when WAN and Internet links go down? (a far more common scenario than LAN links failing)... or the company providing this database goes bust?... or we want to interface the data stored in this database real-time with some other local database or data source?

I don't doubt this product has application in the NPO sector, (although I'm having trouble thinking off too many scenarios where an NPO would want their entire dataset open to the public!!) - but at the quoted price I'm still not sure if it really qualifies as "a good, low-cost database".

Cheers -

RE: Low-cost databases?

bobalston — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:40:00 GMT

Who knows, maybe the original poster, a TechSoup ataffer, will post to clarify the purpose of the original post that started this thread.

Answers are really different if what is desired is just a database to do data management vs. a database that also has the ability to build forms and reports, etc.

Bob