![]() | |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hello. My company is planning on setting up a database for its operations. However, the database itself will not be accessed very often. It will sit on a Dual PIII-1.2ghz box with 1024MB RAM, and of course some nice SCSI HDs. The databases will grow quite large, as they will be a centralized store of all company transactions such as gift certificates, purchases, etc. There are only roughly 30 locations in all, and remote updates to it will be somewhat infrequent. Queries will be even less frequent and extremely simple in logic. So my question is, must I really suggest that we go the extremely expensive route of Microsoft SQL? *nix SQL or other brands of it in general wont really work, as this company has a bad habit of choosing MS only products. Would Access databases be sufficient for this sort of load? Because despite the infrequency of database accesses (maybe 100 between updates/queries a day average), they will grow quite large in time. Anyway, thanks for any input ![]() Chuck If you have the chance to influence the decision on the OS, I'd go for |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 4 Aug 2003 22:43:29 -0700, mortrek (AT) yahoo (DOT) com (Forestfish) wrote: .... well. OTOH, MySQL is great for running a read-only-access DB on a web server, it won't offer you the transactional stability that some of the bigger RDBMS do. |
|
Although SQL Server on a good NT system might be all you need, my gut feeling is to stay away from Microsoft products if you can help it (remember the Slammer?) -- Bob Hairgrove |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |