Access 2007-2019
Access 2000-2003
Access Seminars
TechHelp Support
Tips & Tricks
Access Forum
Course Index
Topic Glossary
Insider Circle
 
Home   Courses   Seminars   Templates   TechHelp   Fast Tips   Forums   Help   Contact   Join   Order   Logon  
 
 
Access v. SQL Server
By Richard Rost   Richard Rost on Twitter Richard Rost on LinkedIn Email Richard Rost   13 years ago

Lots of people ask me, "what's better for my database: Access or SQL Server?" The short answer is this: if you have a small database, or a database being used by a small group of people, Access is perfectly fine by itself. As your needs grow, you can always upgrade to SQL Server and keep Access as a "front-end" database.

Access is a great database tool for single-user and small-group databases used over a LAN (corporate network). Access has the best design tools of any database program on the market (yes, even Access 2007, even though the design change irritated me). It's easy to create your tables, queries, forms, reports, macros, and even VBA code all within Access. I've been using Access since version 1.0 came out back in the early 90s, and I know it inside and out. I've had small and big business clients alike, and Access by itself is just fine for 90% of them.

Access is a stand-alone database program. If you need to share the database between multiple users, then you have to "share" the Access database file (either an MDB or ACCDB file, depending on which version of Access you're using). This is where the efficiency issue comes in. Access works just fine when sharing data between a small group of people (let's say 10 simultaneous users or less) but when you start talking about 15, 20, 30 people using the database at the same time, Access starts to slow down. A lot. Plus data stored in Access isn't REALLY secure.

This is where a database "server" comes in. The database server (usually running on a network file server, or its own dedicated box) does nothing but hand out data when requested. It holds all of the tables and can run all of the queries and just send you what information you need. If Access (alone) were to share a customer list on the network, for example, it would have to send your computer the WHOLE list of 10,000 customers and your local copy of Access would figure out the list of 20 customers it needs. By contrast, a database server would just run the query and send ONLY those 20 customers over the wire. Much faster. Much more efficient.

Now here's the thing... it doesn't matter WHAT database server you use on the back-end. You can use Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, MySQL, or any number of other database servers. You can STILL USE ACCESS as your front-end and keep all of those forms, reports, macros, and VBA code you wrote when your database was small. You'll benefit from the added efficiency (and REAL security) of the new back-end database server, but you'll have the ease of use of the Access front-end.

So, again, I recommend building your database in Access. You can rapid-prototype and get your database up and running on a single, stand-alone PC. Then when you're ready to roll it out to a few users, share it on the network. Then, as your network grows and you're up to 10-15 users, go ahead and upgrade again with a back-end database server. It's all easy to do with Access.

MSAccess sorting and grouping Upload Images   Link  
Richard J Muschamp 
13 years ago
Dialog box does not appear when sorting and grouping symbol is selected.  All that happens is the report gets focus or not as I continually click the symbol.  any ideas?
Add a Reply
Access 2007 Upload Images   Link  
Richard Rost 
13 years ago
Dianne, I'm personally still on the fence with Access 2007. I really, REALLY, don't like the new user interface. Even though I'm a TRAINER and you'd think I'd try to push people into new versions so they have to buy more training from me, that's not the way I work. If I don't like a product, I tell people. Personally, I still recommend Access 2003 over 2007. That's my personal and professional opinion. It's just a better product, interface wise, and they really haven't added that much "under the hood" to compel me to recommend it as an upgrade. Good luck finding a new copy of Access 2003 outside of eBay, however.
Add a Reply
Access 2007 Upload Images   Link  
Dianne McLaughlin 
13 years ago
Regarding your response to Frank on 3/18/09:  

"Frank, Access 2002 (XP) is filled with bugs. I would STRONGLY urge anyone out there using 2002 to upgrade to 2003."

Why would Frank not do better to go directly to Access 2007? Read More...
Add a Reply

Show Older Comments...
View in Table Format

Start a NEW Conversation
 
Only students may post right now. Click here for more information on how you can set up an account. If you are a student, please LOG ON first.
 
Subscribe
 

You may want to read these articles from the 599CD News:

1/26/2022Yes/No Fields
1/22/2022Next Appointment
1/18/2022Access B2 Upgrade
1/17/2022Access Beginner 2 Links
1/17/2022Access Beginner 2
1/17/2022New Record on Top
1/13/2022Missing References
1/13/2022Access Beginner 1 Links
1/12/2022Zoom
1/11/2022Access Fast Tips
 

Learn
 
Access - index
Excel - index
Word - index
Windows - index
PowerPoint - index
Photoshop - index
Visual Basic - index
ASP - index
Seminars
More...
Customers
 
Login
My Account
My Courses
Lost Password
Memberships
Student Databases
Change Email
Info
 
Latest News
New Releases
User Forums
Topic Glossary
Tips & Tricks
Search The Site
Code Vault
Collapse Menus
Help
 
Customer Support
Web Site Tour
FAQs
TechHelp
Consulting Services
About
 
Background
Testimonials
Jobs
Affiliate Program
Richard Rost
Free Lessons
Mailing List
Order
 
Video Tutorials
Handbooks
Memberships
Learning Connection
Idiot's Guide to Excel
Volume Discounts
Payment Info
Shipping
Terms of Sale
Contact
 
Contact Info
Support Policy
Email Richard
Mailing Address
Phone Number
Fax Number
Course Survey
Blog RSS Feed    Twitter

YouTube Channel    LinkedIn
Keywords: access v. sql server  PermaLink