All geek questions in one place

"Access 2002 vs SQL Server 200 *" as DB for sharepoint

I work with the team in which the sharepoint node is currently working, and its lists are linked to the access database. My question is really at the investment level, what would be the reason for updating the database to sharepoint if only a few 100 users access this site. Is there any real benefit of replacing the database with a version of SQL Server, especially if Access 2002 will be released later in 2007. I know that SQL Server can handle more memory and traffic for more users, but I'm looking for more reasons than if they were.

+3
source share
4 answers

If you have multiple users accessing the database, it is always worth replacing Access. Newer versions may not be that bad, but in my experience earlier versions (2002 and earlier) had some problems with data corruption in a multi-user environment. I would rather use SQL Server Express than Access. SQL Server Express will give you all the benefits of SQL Server (there are some restrictions, such as the maximum database size and the number of processors that it can use), but it will simplify the path to a full copy of SQL Server in the future.

+3
source

- . (SQL Server, Sybase, Oracle, DB2, UDB,...) , .

+2

, - SQL Server, 4 . , SQL Server, .

0

, - SQL Server, , SQL Server , , , Access . SQL Server Express , , SQL Server over Access.

, , , ... Access (, ). , , - . , - Windows, , concurrency .

Access will remain a weak point in architecture, and it understands its limitations well (in particular, transactional integrity), so you can make informed decisions on its use, but I would not consider it as a given that it should be replaced, If it does now work and there is no reason to believe that she will not continue to do her work in the foreseeable future, consider letting sleeping dogs lie. Perhaps ROI will not replace it.

-1
source

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/1738117/

More articles:


All Articles