I was reading this article over at Codewalkers and realized I was in trouble the instant I came across this sentence:
With numerous choices available on the market, considering you don’t want to put too much investment on it, only MySQL stands out from the crowd.
I have no idea why people continue to ignore PostgresSQL. I think they read too much of the Linux propaganda which always seems to emphasize MySQL, but PostgresSQL is just as capable, if not more capable, of performing the same tasks as MySQL, but I digress.
The article covers whether or not you should move your data over to MySQL from Access. This to me doesn’t even sound like an option. You should just do it if you are having more than 1 connection hitting the Access “database”. At my first job, 50% of the tech support issues revolved around people being locked out of shared Access databases. It’s a great tool for desktop database use, but should not be used for real database use like some companies try and make it become.
They go on to make some points on why you wouldn’t wish to migrate your Access data to MySQL and two of them seem to miss the point completely:
- You want your data be easily portable. Since Access is a local based program, you can take your data with your wherever you like by just copying the file into a disk. The file can be opened with an Access program installed in another computer.
- You prioritize the use of the reporting features of Access more than the database features of MySQL.
Looking at the first point it’s silly to say that Access data is more “portable” than MySQL data since you can just go into PHPMyAdmin and do a text file export of your data and put it on disk just as easily. If you wanted to open the file on another Access application then you are probably better off using a shared MySQL database anyways.
For the second point they seem to overlook the fact that you can use Access as a frontend to MySQL and still use the reporting functionality.
Once you get to the next couple of pages you learn that the real intent of this article is just to sell their product Navicat. It’s a shame because a good article could be had if they really wanted to do an indepth comparison.
on the mysql vs. postgresql issue: i think that part of the problem lies in the fact that it’s easy for developers running on windows to simply install mysql on their workstation, have a fiddle with it, get comfortable with the administration etc, without the need for any convoluted setups. yes, i know you *can* run postgresql on windows via cygwin, but honestly i tried getting it all set up a few years ago (when i was just starting out with doing db-driven sites), couldn’t get it to run properly (granted, nowadays it may be a lot easier and i might have more success at getting it to work), and – frustrated – i simply turned to running the mysql installer.
maybe it’s just me being a bit dense, but this echoes the feelings of a lot of developers i’ve talked to…
patrick #1:
you are right with the windows and incapacity of postresql to be more user/developer friendly. I have tried to install it and run (just last December?) on windows machine using cygwin and me being a windows user I was stuck with errors and errors and couln’t make it.
I think it’s actually the problem of postresql developers. If they are not able to provide it for windows and if the most of the world uses windows, then postresql won’t be a major database. that maybe could be sad, but it’s a fact.
I remember the first time I tried to install MySQL – really old version. I had some problems with that, but after a while could do it. Not with postresql. And why there is need for cygwin? cygwin could be great, but it’s a still some strange (geeky?) thing for windows users. And don’t be mistaken, I have installed and run few Linux systems.
Version 8.0 of PostgreSQL (now in beta) will support Windows, maybe things will begin to change then.
What about Firebird, the open sourced Interbase? It has pretty good cross-platform support, easy to install on Windows, full ACID just like PostgreSQL, and has an embeded mode where applications use it as local database just like Access, which makes your data “portable” in the way that article understands.
sqlite!
I mean sqlite just plain rules for most of the uses I’ve seen mysql in.
I mean mysqlì’s old datastore does not even support foreign keys! you coan’t even cal it a rdbms
i am currently implementing a database for my client’s website..but i im i a dilemma of using MySQL or MS Access..can both support jsp programming?can someone convince me that the “free” MySQL is better than the “ex” MS Access…
MySQL is not free. In order for it to be distributed and used free, your application has to be open source – which most of us don’t do.
No way am I saying that Access is better, BUT I do feel that Access is much more portable because it’s file-based instead of server based. Server based is a pain if you are distributing/selling small applications for home use. No home user wants to take up valuable system resources to run a database server just for one small application. They’d much rather have a single DLL talking to the database.
Myself, I am split between using SQLite and Firebird for my personal projects. I am currently evaluating both. Anyone out there have any personal experience with either of these they’d like to share?
I agree. Access is far more portable.