Some questions

[stickan]

Had a discussion with a person today.

He claimed that a real client-server solution can't include an ACCESS database even if it just hold the data and the manipulation and visualization is made by a vb program.

Also that this solution caused mutch more network traffic than a SQL-server solution even if all the connection with the db where through the ADO recordset and ordinary SQL-question (SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT, DELETE..).

Without going into a too complex discussion of technical differences and how superior SQL-Server is in many cases, what did he mean and is he right?

Can't a real client-server solution include an ACCESS db and does it cause mutch more network traffic?

(Of course the db is on one computer and the other ones connect to this one, otherwise there would not be any traffic at all, and also without taking in consideration the things you can do in SQL-Server like stored procedures, triggers and so on, just plain SQL questions...)

[Cander]

Can. But shouldn't. It doesnt increase network traffic. Access CANNOT handle more han a couple concurrent users without getting horribly bogged down. That is why you don't use Access to control a multi user database.

[stickan]

Yes, Access is not the best solution when is comes to multiuser programs, but my own experience is that with the newer versions and depending on what the users do and how you connect and change the data it can work fairly good even with many more user than 2. But it was more the thing where he started to talk about the network traffic that made me wonder if he really knew what he was talking about, and the only metods I use is open for the recordset and execute on the connectionobject and the cursorlocation I want on the clientside.

[randem]

stickan,

Please Read Database Problems in my signature.

[si_the_geek]

The trouble is "clientside", SQL Server (and any other 'proper' database systems) will happily handle server-side cursors, which dramatically reduce network traffic. You can't use them in all situations, but they are very good (for example: you can see updates made by other users since you opened the recordset).

[dee-u]

Had a discussion with a person today.

He claimed that a real client-server solution can't include an ACCESS database even if it just hold the data and the manipulation and visualization is made by a vb program.

Also that this solution caused mutch more network traffic than a SQL-server solution even if all the connection with the db where through the ADO recordset and ordinary SQL-question (SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT, DELETE..).

Without going into a too complex discussion of technical differences and how superior SQL-Server is in many cases, what did he mean and is he right?

Can't a real client-server solution include an ACCESS db and does it cause mutch more network traffic?

(Of course the db is on one computer and the other ones connect to this one, otherwise there would not be any traffic at all, and also without taking in consideration the things you can do in SQL-Server like stored procedures, triggers and so on, just plain SQL questions...)

I think he is right since Access is not a database server hence it is not for client-server...

[Hack]

Moved from ClassicVb.

Without going into a too complex discussion of technical differences and how superior SQL-Server is in many cases, what did he mean and is he right?

Yes...he is right and Cander, si and dee-u pretty much summed up why.