Comments on: Access vs. MySQL

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 01:42:26 +0000

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?

By: Shaz

Shaz — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:31:53 +0000

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.

By: lynn

lynn — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:13:58 +0000

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…

By: verbat

verbat — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:57:23 +0000

sqlite!
I mean sqlite just plain rules for most of the uses I’ve seen mysql in.
I mean mysqlÃ¬’s old datastore does not even support foreign keys! you coan’t even cal it a rdbms

By: scotty

scotty — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:21:01 +0000

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.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:28:02 +0000

Version 8.0 of PostgreSQL (now in beta) will support Windows, maybe things will begin to change then.

By: dusoft

dusoft — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:21:24 +0000

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.

By: patrick h. lauke

patrick h. lauke — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:48:54 +0000

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…