Database with .NET

[techmanbd]

KenpoMatt, I would stay with oracle since you already have it. and as much money as your company probably paid for it, i doubt they would want to get SQL SERVER. Plus i believe Oracle is a stronger database.

[dpifer]

I've been using Oracle 9i, MS SQL 2K, & Acesss....once you got how to connect to the db's and use datasets, datatables, data adapters etc....they are very, very similar.....Oracle's PL SQL is pretty hard to beat though.....

[jssk]

Interesting article

 

Here is an interesting article about ADO.NET with an useful object-oriented extension:

 

http://www.15seconds.com/Issue/031013.htm

 

The aritcle presents an alternative database for .NET.

[mocella]

SQL 2000 Enterprise and IBM DB2 on the good-ole OS390 box.

[steved]

KenpoMatt,

 

I have to agree with techmanbd. Oracle is a beautiful piece of software from an engineering perspective. Granted, MSSQL is cutesy-poo and ridiculously easy... but if you have any fulltime DBA staff, that really isn't an issue. Don't get me wrong, I like MSSQL 2000 a lot (mostly because I'm no DBA). I just like Oracle9i more. ;)

 

Now with Oracle 10g out, I'm curious if Yukon will do anything to tackle grid computing, or if Microsoft plans to keep its nose out of the high-end enterprise market. Anyone else read up on what treats Yukon will give us?

 

Or, better yet, did anyone go to PDC2003? No one from my office was willing to shell out $4000+ to fly down.

[AlexCode]

I just want to say that DevExpress have a new database product called XPO (Xpress Presistent Objects) that really rulez...

 

Thay have a supperb support and the component it's improving... Real good tool...

 

 

http://www.devexpress.com

 

 

 

Alex :D

[techmanbd]

Earlier I wrote that I use Access at work, well I can change my answer now. They have an IBM AS400. Neevr used it before but hey finally gave me space and my own data folder on it. I will start using it this week. Real cool because I get to learn something new.

[OnTheAnvil]

I've used SQL Server 2000 for everything, and I typically refuse to work for clients who don't at least have their databases set up with a ODBC driver that I can use just like SQL Server.

[AlexCode]

OnTheAnvil

 

I'm happy to know that your business is that healthy that makes you choose only clients with SQL 2000... :D

 

MS & its DB have quite a good implementation, and the product itself insn't bad but the real world doesn't let us choose our clients like that... they choose us.

So a good developer must be good dealing with any DB.

 

A little futher on this, my experience tells me that SQL server isn't allways the best choice. On a wide range of cases, MS Access or MySQL are better than SQL Sever 2000, being lighter and faster...

 

 

 

Alex :D

[iebidan]

Access and MySQL are free, that's why companies are using them, but there are several things you need to consider, MySQL doesn't support VIEWS or STORED PROCEDURES, and SQL Server or Oracle do, and believe me a SP can be very helpful processing data or a view, helping you to avoid repeating the same data, or create complex queries in the client side.

An engine, and many more things can make you think what DB you should use, here in the company we've 90 SQL Server servers and 1 Oracle server on a True Unix server (Alpha server) only for California (for the whole country there are many many many more servers in the datacenter in Houston), and this will be amazing, but Oracle is the slowest server.

So all depends on what you really need, and hoping that the company will be willing to spend a few thousands in a good DB, and how good DB designers you have, you can have the best DB in the world and a mediocre DB designer, the result will be like the Oracle server here (that's why I'm removing this server soon (I hope))

[AlexCode]

:) reading American huge ideas allways makes me smille! Not that I have anything against it but just puts a little smille on my face. Just when I was taking my MS Certifications, the exams were allways about managing an infrastructure never less than 10.000 computers!! :)

 

Ok... that really exists but how many of us work or ever worked on something like that? And more... how many of us would really want that?? :p

 

Back to DataBases, and considering what I just said, small apps sell... sometimes we earn more money on the small things than on the bigger... if we consider the ratio (time spent)/(income). For these kind of apps sometimes (most of the times) SQL Server/Oracle are just too big!

Not mentionning the installation costs... althow the MSDE is free, someone have to install it!

 

This way of thinking also applies to programming languages.

 

Too many people are stuck on their own (only) way of doing stuff discarding any possibility to take knowledge of more technologies that could do their work faster and better...

 

Do I prefer SQL Server?

Certainlly...

 

Do I always use it?

Certainlly not!

 

 

Alex :p

[michael_hk]

I am using MSSQL and MySQL.

[Denaes]

Currently only using Access.

 

I havn't used a Stored Procedure, so I don't know what I'm missing... but they sound neat.

 

I want/need to expand into MySQL for distributed larger scale databases...

 

The reason why I [/b]LOVE[/b] .Net so much is that I can write my program and really all I need to change are the connections and data adaptors to switch to MSDE or MySQL... or most other database types.

 

I guess if I become reliant on Stored Procedures, I can't easily take a backwards step into not using them.

[keitsi]

mysql 3.23 on linux, access only when I'm forced to :)

[AlexCode]

That is one thing I may try one day...

Assemble a Linux Server to be a DB Server and try to manage it...

 

I'm only waiting for the v5 witch will support SP's and Triggers among with other several very very nice features...

 

http://www.mysql.com/products/mysql/

 

Alex :p

[keitsi]

Access and MySQL are free

Hmm, isn't mysql GPL or $495, depending if your app is opensourced or not.

http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/

[Denaes]

That is one thing I may try one day...

Assemble a Linux Server to be a DB Server and try to manage it...

 

I'm only waiting for the v5 witch will support SP's and Triggers among with other several very very nice features...

 

http://www.mysql.com/products/mysql/

 

Alex :p

 

SPs!

 

Access to the one of the fastest lightest freeist database engines while still allowing convience? I'd move all of my data intensive projects over to mySQL then :D

[michael_hk]

Over 1/3 ppl are using Access, unbelievable.... :eek:

[Joe Mamma]

lets hear it for hybrids!

 

Most of my apps use a jet DB for local data manipulation and configuration settings, even if the app uses a DB server for backend.

 

I dont care for Oracle, but then again my apps are mostly OLAP and not OLTP.

In that arena Oracle, in my experience, is over kill.

 

Lack of SP's and Views (and I think triggers too) rules out MySql.

 

Borland's Interbase is a great SQL-92 compliant database that should get more attention. I really love IBM (Formerly Informix) Universal Server. IBM-US is the standard for ORDBMS.

 

Mattise looks interesting.

[Menge]

i'm starting to take a look at MySQL.

[Ido]

I'm using MSDE 2000

[ost]

Over 1/3 ppl are using Access' date=' unbelievable.... :eek:[/quote']

 

:cool: Well it is posible to choose more than one database in the poll. I guess most people have tried to develop a small app with an underlying Access base.. Thats why i checked it :D

 

Other than Access I use SQL-2000 ( my primary choice ). I have used both Oracle and My-Sql but mainly because the projects I was assigned to used these platforms ;)

[AlexCode]

I really can't figure out what you have against Access DB's.

Is it possible that there are developers that only see SQL Server?

 

I think that the main problem here is a base problem.

A developer that only sees one programing language and also one database engine didn't have a proper programing education...

 

Sorry for those who see themselfs in this scenario but... it's true!

 

Alex :p

[ost]

I really can't figure out what you have against Access DB's.

Is it possible that there are developers that only see SQL Server?

 

I think that the main problem here is a base problem.

A developer that only sees one programing language and also one database engine didn't have a proper programing education...

 

Sorry for those who see themselfs in this scenario but... it's true!

 

Alex :p

 

I dont think anybody have anything against Access. In IMO its a great application for creating smaller solutions. But if you have to create larger applications, few would choose Access because it's not made to serve that purpose.

[AlexCode]

I absolutly agree with you...

 

The problem is that you see 90% of the developers ONLY working with SQL either on small and large applications.

 

Second, you see them, even on large applications, use SQL as a simple data repository... That Access or Fox Pro do as well...

 

You can see Access pointed as a lame tool by people who don't even know what a SP is...

 

If you deeply analyse 50% of the SQL based applications I'm shure that they could be working as well as they are but in Access...

 

 

I think the guilt here can be pointed to Microsoft on its quest to promote SQL as the supra DB Engine, most of the times compromizing its own related products as Access and Fox Pro...

 

I just think that would be good for everyone that posts like the one from michael_hk

Over 1/3 ppl are using Access, unbelievable.... :eek:

simply didn't had a point... ;)

 

 

Just to clear things up... I'm a VS.net developer, MCSD, MCSA, MCDBA, working with enything that more likelly will suite my DB needs... Access, SQL, Oracle, Fox Pro, mySQL...

 

Alex