|
| Iniciado por guest, 10,nov. 2015 18:37 - 4 respuestas |
| |
| | | |
|
| |
| Publicado el 10,noviembre 2015 - 18:37 |
Hi All,
I am writing an application that will be used on a local area network with multiple users. There will be about 7 files/tables with about 5000 records max in at least 3 tables and the rest will have less than 100 records. I don't want to use a database server at this stage so my choices are limited to either HFSQL Classic or a MS Access database for data storage. Please give me some advice on which would be the better to use from these two options. Speed, reliability and managability are the most important factors to me.
Kind Regards
Ray |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| Publicado el 10,noviembre 2015 - 18:52 |
Hello Ray
Installing HFSQL C/S takes 5 min tops, can be done on ANY of the computers of the network, does not require any maintenance, and will provide the best solution.
Neither access nor HF CLASSIC are suitable for a network acces solution (I mean a RELIABLE one), because of oplock problems due to the OS.
You can develop your anlysis in HF classic, then do a hchangeconexion in the code to connect to your HF C/S
Best regards |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| Publicado el 10,noviembre 2015 - 19:11 |
Hi Raymond,
Your question depends on several factors; the obvious ones are "server" spec, number of users, speed of network, but there are other like what the users are doing, how network intensive their work might be?
I have a HFSQL classic DB (running in Windows file sharing mode), on a site with approx. 5 users of which 2 users are pretty intensive, i.e. epos user running all day and the other is maintaining products all day and (touch wood), I don't have any issues. There are several dozen tables, most of them static but there are several many-to-many files, epos and stock transaction files with 20,000+ records and the product file has 15,000+ records (...and counting).
Having said all the above, I will be changing the setup on the above customer's site to HFSQL c/s in the near future due to several events happening at the same time; namely, the customer has just upgraded their network, he wants to add more users/PC's to the network and I believe there are small performance gains to be had with c/s. I'm not doing this because I've experienced the problems that Fabrice mentions above but I do agree that the potential for them happening is there.
I have no experience of using M$ Access in a WD environment. |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| Publicado el 11,noviembre 2015 - 06:25 |
Hi Ray,
do not use HF classic
1. in multi users environment
2. transaction, even though in single user and even though it is not often , rollback will fail . fixing fail rollback record is hassle . |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| Publicado el 11,noviembre 2015 - 14:22 |
Thanks everyone for your advice. It is pretty clear that the database server route is the best way to go. I will give HyperSQL C/S a try.
Regards
Ray |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | | | |
| | |
|