Re: SQL server Vs Oracle / access is a disaster...

On Wed, 12 May 1999 12:01:45 +0200, rumours say that "Frédéric BROUARD" <f.brouard_at_simog.com> might have written:

>I am writing a paper about Access vs Paradox, two similar products...
>Wee spend 2 weeks to do a complete benchmark...
>The match is clear : access is a real disaster, but I am not sure it's
>universally known !!!
>The paper will be avable in french in few weeks on the web
>But this a the prime results :

At first, don't assume all your readers will have a monotyped font for viewing your articles.

>Thème Paradox
>Access Avantage
>===============================================================================================

>Passage à l’an 2000 Excellent
>Médiocre Paradox
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Don't they both support 4 digit years in dates?

>Compatibilité ascendante Excellente
>Médiocre Paradox
>des versions
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK.

>Base de données Optimisé
>Médiocre Paradox
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What optimising is Access lacking?

>Type de données des tables 17
>11 Paradox
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK.

>Limites bases Aucune 1
>Go Paradox
>/ tables / Très élevées / Moyenne
>/ moteur / Raisonnable /
>Raisonnable
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had trouble understanding the formatted paragraph, so I don't know.

>Gestion de la concurrence Très performant Médiocre et
>bugué Paradox
> dans la
>réplication
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK.

>Gestion du modèle relationnel Excellente
>Moyenne Paradox
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like sb to elaborate on that. Where's Access lacking in its relational model?

>Objets d’accès aux données 20 + 11 17 +
>?? ??
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well? Insufficient data on Paradox?

>Ouverture vers les autres Bonne intégration à Win Bonne
>intégration à =
>applications 16, 32 et Corel Win 16, 32
>et Microsoft
> WordPerfect Office Office
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Paradox supporting automation too? If it is, then there are no differences. Also Corel is not software classified with Win16 and Win32. And you seem to be taking sides.

>Gadgets visuel Pauvre
>Riche Access
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK.

>Type de langage Interprété
>Interprété =
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Modèle d’événement Exceptionnel
>Pauvre Paradox
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please elaborate on that.

>Richesse des add-on Très pauvre Très
>riche Access
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK.

>Type de données du langage 51
>?? ??
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51? What are you counting in? Different object types?

>Fonction, propriétés, constantes 1760, 135, 2212
>?? ??
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More isn't always better. So, although you don't conclude, you shouldn't count functions, properties and constants in your comparison.

>Exécution dynamique du code Possible
>Impossible Paradox
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean you tried Access' Eval?

>Gestion d’accès critique Excellente
>Desastreuse Paradox
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK (although I never lost data with Access, apart from a locking matter with memo fields)

>Gestion des exceptions Très étendue
>Raisonnable Paradox
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't say much.

>Compilation, source, exécutable Run time nécessaire Run time
>masqué =
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK.

>Requêtes QBE et SQL 92 natif SQL
>propriétaire et 89 Paradox
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And how exactly this gives Paradox' queries an advantage?

>Documentation des applications Méthodes intégrées
>?? ??
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't speak for that.

>Sécurité Cryptage + droits Droits par
>tables et Paradox
> par table et champs champs
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I can't remember what 'champs' means, I wonder why Paradox is better, given your data here.

>Moteur de requêtes Accès natif aux
>ODBC Paradox
> principaux SGBDR
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I need help on this.

>Performances du moteur Excellente
>Désastreuses Paradox
>===============================================================================================
Examples!

>This table is not complete yet, but in 24 items 15 are for Paradox and
>in the beter case Access will have 5 items.... Quite a difference... And
>Paradox is not so use as Access, but look at forums to know the troubles
>with developpers....

>In fact Access is limited to 10/15 users, Paradox 40/50 (in practice,
>not theorycall), query run 30 to 90 % faster in paradox than in Access,
>security features and multi-user concurency is much more efficient in
>Paradox rather in Access.

I can agree on multiuser concurrency, but I wish I knew so thorough a security model as Access'.

>The only fact that Access can take advantages, is that :
> - access have much more visual "gadgets"
OK.

> - access have much more wizard for dummies (writing a non performant
>code...)

Access is trying to be very user-friendly, when its power is better exploited by a good developper/programmer.

> - ability of the langage (VB) to do everything except what a L4G is
>suppose to do !

It can get really close (I have a lot of Ingres experience and a little of Oracle). Which part exactly of a 4GL do you miss? --
Greetings from Greece, I speak England very best, TZOTZIOY, just an earthbound misfit, I
ICQ# 13397953 (when e-mailing remove the obvious after the .com part) Received on Wed May 12 1999 - 11:07:54 CDT