SQL Vs. Access for Learning Database Concepts? 160
Jonathan Hamilton asks: "I work at the School of Communications for a major state University. The IT Department for the University (the same people that won't let us have a firewall, and use IIS and Exchange) is trying to talk my boss into switching from using SQL for teaching database concepts to MS Access. My coworkers and I think they are nuts. I have googled for pages comparing the two and can't come up with anything. I know some of the reasons why it is a bad idea, but I can't find any references. Help!" The mantra here is: the best tool for the best job. Is Access a suitable tool for teaching database concepts to students? If not, what would you use instead, and why?
Go along, and teach a valuable lesson to all (Score:5, Insightful)
Let them give you MS-Access, and use it like it should be used. MS-ACCESS is a pretty frond end, and sufficient for small databases. It's also a nice teaching tool because it'll let you see the syntax of a query by example. Once those lessons are imparted, and you need to do real work, the fun begins. You can then show how easy it is to install and run a real database server such as MySQL [mysql.com] on the backend.
You can then contrast and compare the benchmarks between a system of 20 clients sharing a database on a fileserver, and a properly configured MySql server with 20 Access clients. It should teach the proper lesson once and for all.
--Mike--
Re:Go along, and teach a valuable lesson to all (Score:5, Insightful)
Better yet, don't teach em Access at all.
Teach em SQL. Make em do it from the command line. They will thank you in the long run. Why, because then when they have to write embbedded SQL to get their app to run, they will know it.
Re:Go along, and teach a valuable lesson to all (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Go along, and teach a valuable lesson to all (Score:2)
Re:Go along, and teach a valuable lesson to all (Score:3, Informative)
To keep it from being boring, we also started doing small web applications with the databases and tables we built - it was actually quite a bit of fun.
We used MySQL, since it was a simple matter to set up on his Windows 2000 laptop for his practice. Apache and PERL are also braindead easy to set up and offer quite a bit of cross-platform usefulness.
I used to do a lot of Access, way back when. I'd recommend avoiding it, as I later spent a lo
Re:Go along, and teach a valuable lesson to all (Score:2)
Can you tell us what school you went to, so we can avoid it? Thinking mySQL is a "Real Database" is worse than teaching relational database concepts on Access.
Re:A TOOL IS YOU (Score:5, Informative)
From the page:
6.4.2 Subquery Syntax
A subquery is a SELECT statement inside another statement. For example:
SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE column1 = (SELECT column1 FROM t2);
In the above example, SELECT * FROM t1
Starting with version 4.1, MySQL supports all subquery forms and operations which the SQL standard requires, as well as a few features which are MySQL-specific.
Teaching tools (Score:1)
SQL (Score:2)
Re:SQL (Score:1, Offtopic)
What's the right tool? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What's the right tool? (Score:3, Interesting)
If they are enough of a user to NEED Access, they are more likely to use a Web interface to a REAL SQL backend...
What's more likely is that this school was given free licenses, free books, new computers, or just plain old money to use Access...
Re:What's the right tool? (Score:2)
--trb
Re:What's the right tool? (Score:2)
And since Ms-Access is installed with some/most business
Re:What's the right tool? (Score:2)
Re:What's the right tool? (Score:2)
That's not to say that MS Access has no business being taught at a university. Simply that if it is used, it should be used to teach SQL and relational database fundamentals. MS Access isn't, in my opinion, the best tool to use to teach this knowledge bu
SQL Works In Access (Score:5, Informative)
While editing a query, just click the View menu and go to "SQL View".
So, you can start out with the basics of databases using just Access' GUI tools, and then graduate to SQL without having to switch environments.
I second this (Score:2)
Just make sure that you start with the general "wizard" approach, and then move on to using real SQL for things. They can build a query (or whatnot) and switch to the SQL view to check things as needed, which is a boon while learning.
Then have an in-class demonstration of benchmarks between Access and any other DB :P
Also
Re:SQL Works In Access (Score:1)
JoelOnSoftware has a good piece on the 'Law of Leaky Abstractions' [joelonsoftware.com] which for me sums up the problem with using Access as a teaching tool.
When someone doesn't understand that their "report" is returning no rows because they really don't understand outer-joins, then you have frustration. SQL at least forces you to think about those things.
Re:SQL (doesn't) Works In Access (Score:2, Insightful)
In short, Access shouldn't be used to teach S
Re:SQL Works In Access (Score:2)
No you've just taught students how to click the View menu and go to "SQL View".
Teaching them how to compose and manipulate a SQL statement is totally different. Except for very basic SQL statements, its a crutch.
Re:SQL Works In Access (Score:2)
Not always. I took my databases course from a prof who specifically said we could not use Access for our projects because "it's a toy, not a real database." He was right.
Two years or so after taking this course I had to do a complex query at work on an Access database (let me add the caveat here that I am an embedded software developer, not a DBA). I can't recal
You're Wrong (Score:2)
No, it is not. The mantra is whether you should half-truths about databases and then later someone will be able to use a real database. Access is not a database it is a "database-program" one is inseparable from the other. SQL is a type of database that holds true to what it is, a database. It does not create forms, process charts, or do anything else that databases DO NOT do.
Re:You're Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
i just remember.. (Score:2)
it was just pretty ui playaround, even if i did remember the lessons well i wouldn't be able to use any of that information to my advantage now.
though, if you do it properly and teach some concepts behind the issues and just use the particular program you're using on the course just as a tool to get something done then you should be ok by going with whatever you choose. teach the concepts, not just what button you click.
Database concepts (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Database concepts (Score:2, Insightful)
And neither is MySQL's syntax. The SQL for example has nested queries. MySQL does not have that.
In the end it's all about relational calculus. You can teach that with both tools at hand.
The article seems to suggest that Access is very bad at being serving a database (i.e., it is not suitable for real database work) - and that is certainly the truth, yet you will hardly need a real database for teachin
Re:Database concepts (Score:2)
Re:Database concepts (Score:2, Interesting)
> access is 100% standard.
Last I knew, no available database has 100% standard syntax. They all differ
from the standard in a number of areas.
The problem with Access is that it's becomming obscure. It's not included
with most versions of MS Office anymore, for one reason or another (probably
because MS wanted to drive sales of their _other_ database offering, SQL
Server), and so consequently few desktops have it, so nobody know
Both (Score:5, Informative)
Access can also be a pass-thru front end to other ODBC enabled RDBMSs.
Some Data (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Some Data (Score:5, Interesting)
A project I worked on once initially had a requirement of developing a prototype in Access. This was doing some hard crunching on a lot of data (so much so that we kept hitting the 2 gig limit of Access). It eventually got to the point where we were doing a certain operation that was pretty simple really. Read a bunch of data from one table, and insert results from the calculations in a couple other tables. This was originally developed completely in Access using VBA. It was slow, to say the least. I had profiling code in it so that I could see the current progress, and the projected completion time. The first time we ran it, it projected that it would be finished in a couple months. We spent a week tweaking like mad until we got that down to just under 4 weeks.
So then we decided it was time to scrap Access as a DB, and moved all the data to a db2 database. Our initial hope was to continue using the VBA code, though... so we hooked up the VBA code to the db2 database through ODBC. Even after another week of tweaking (including figuring out how to sorta do prepares with the kludgy API) the performance was even more abysmal than when it was in Access. Somewhere around 6 weeks if I remember right.
At this time I convinced the project manager that I could get the performance up if I ported it to Perl. I finally got the go ahead, and spent a few hours porting the code over (remember, this was a pretty simple function, it just had some ugly calculations). My first result with Perl was about 1 week. But then I realized that I had forgotten to prepare my inserts outside of the main loop. Fixed that and the thing ran in 6 hours. I swear... I'm not exaggerating or anything.
My lesson from the experience, was that Access can't handle large amounts of data (besides the fact that it has a built-in 2 gig hard limit), and that preparing before your loop is a HUGE optimization. I had used prepares like that before, but on such limited samples that it didn't make that big of a difference.
Like I said, anecdotal, but it definitely tought me some lessons.
Nicodemus
Re:Some Data (Score:3, Insightful)
Once your tables push past around 500,000 or 1,000,000 records, it's all downhill performance-wise. Large inserts into an indexed table were prone to be slow as molasses (usually killed the indexes prior to the insert and then rebuilt).
OTOH, it was a decent way to learn the basics of SQL, limited relational database design, and a way to start learning Visual Basic and
Re: (Score:2)
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Access has an SQL engine in it (not the best, but hey). I don't understand the SQL vs. Access question. You could teach someone SQL using Access.
Realistically, there are much better dialects of SQL than the Microsoft ones. No need to start them off with the bad habits Microsoft encourages. PostgreSQL has one of the most ANSI-SQL compliant parsers, and it's free. I see no good reason to pay extra to get an inferior product.
Really, Access is more of a database client creation toolkit with a poor-man's database tacked on. It does some things quite well, but it's somewhat crippled to only work well with Microsoft products.
I get the jibblies just thinking about a bunch of first-year students "learning" that relational database == MSAccess.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What? (Score:2)
Once upon a time I did my share of Jet programming, especially in the context of delivering custom Access "applications." Jet's management capabilities leave a lot to be desired, especially compared to the likes of the SQL-DMO.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:1)
Re:What? (Score:2)
But But But that is what they will use in industry cry the MS folks.
Not in my shop.
I feel better now.
Teach PostgreSQL.
SQL != MS SQL Server.
Re:What? (Score:2)
One should be able to learn an MS operating system or a *IX system or a palm or AtheOS or...
I'm more concerned that they are familiar with a couple of languages out of a CS degree than I am that they can tell me what a wheel group is.
If it's an administrator, know a scripting language and XML. Know at least three operating systems, and be able to pick up an application in ten minutes because the bo
Re:What? (Score:2)
There are lots of client programs for PostgreSQL that run on Windows. Hell, even Access is one of them (though not recommended). My favorite is PgAdmin [pgadmin.org].
With PHPPgAdmin, any platform with a web browser can interface with PostgreSQL. I don't think client platforms would be a problem.
Now, if the server is running Windows, well... how about not running Windows on your database server. Really, why would you want Windows on your class' database server?
If your IT guys won't let you bring in a little Linux box f
mod parent up (Score:2)
fwiw, our it and mis (academic) departments both use oracle heavily and the cs department uses oracle exclusively in its database classes. as far as i'm concerned, while access has its place, that place is far far far away from anybody whose goal is to actually learn the principles of databases. if you want a well trained monkey who can do basic database stuff, send them to any ms office class. if you want someone who actually understands what's going on and has a set of skills (spe
Terrible Idea! (Score:1)
If they wont let you use IIS then can I suggest Microweb [indigostar.com] for a quick eval to see if you want to go the MySQL route. Just download it and burn it to a CD and then you can quickly and painlessly see how MySQL works on any win32 computer.
If you also download the phpMyAdmin [phpmyadmin.net] and drop it into the cd you can use the graphical web-based frontend and see how simple and powerful it is
Some stuff to start with... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's [wku.edu] a link to a discussion where the poster states that Access is not good for large installations...
You might check with IBM (DB2 [ibm.com]), Oracle [oracle.com], MySQL [mysql.com], or Postgres [postgresql.org] for help as well...I'm sure they'ld be more than happy to help.
Cross platform compatability. Students with Windoze, Linux, or Macs can run most SQL servers...not so with Access...
And then there's the corporate settings...most companies are using DB2, Oracle, MySql, or something that is ANSI-SQL compatible...not M$ SQL...
You also have more utilities and help available for SQL than Access...
There's GUI tools, schema browsers, etc all available for SQL...
If your school runs its website on a *NIX server, you could up-play the compatibility angle...you know, senior projects and such...
One major advantage of SQL is that all of the companies/organizations that I mentioned are free or have a free educational version...I doubt M$ does...
Re:Some stuff to start with... (Score:2)
What are you basing that statement on? This [entmag.com] Gartner study released earlier this year has Oracle as no1 followed by DB2 but both of them losing marketshare, while Microsoft in the no3 spot increased revenues for 2002. And, MS SQL is the number 1 db for Windows.
Proprietary technologies? (Score:2)
Learn Access, and be tied to 1 platform. It's a bit like learning VB; yeah it's easier at first but afterwards you're caught in the Microsoft playground.
Education, I think, must avoid teaching proprietary technologies. I have an Access course, so to work from home I have to buy Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Access. As studen
Re:Proprietary technologies? (Score:2)
You've got to be kidding! (Score:2, Interesting)
SQL server is better but it's also very vulnerable to attack and virus/worm exploitable!
The real solution would be to drop in a Linux box, setup telnetd or sshd and let the students telnet into their own shell accounts. Then have them run PostgreSQL and experience a real fr
Re:You've got to be kidding! (Score:2)
I believe the question was, as the titlebar says, "SQL vs. Access for Learning Database Concepts". APIs are not concepts, at least not in this context.
I'd assert that both Access and [insert SQL RDBMS here] are crap for a theory class. A real SQL database is less crappy, but unless doing nothin
Re:You've got to be kidding! (Score:2)
I'd assert that both Access and [insert SQL RDBMS here] are crap for a theory class. A real SQL database is less crappy, but unless doing nothing but teaching people to think about FKs and joins is the goal, the class should start on the chalk board. Explain set theory, have people work out the problems on paper.
Theoretical knowledge is all good and well, but the article mentioned a department of communications, not CS so I doubt this class is very theoretical (otherwise I doubt they'd even consider usin
Re:You've got to be kidding! (Score:2)
How much theory does one need when it appears that the most common database implementation these days involves nothing more complicated than "SELECT * FROM Authors"?
I see people using DBs for this and honestly, if that's all you're doing, it is pretty pointless to use an RDBMS for it - the overhead and complexity outweighs the value that you're not using. 5 lines of perl and a flat file are going to be fine for you. I know people do it every day, bu
Re:MOD ME UP! (Score:2)
You should have known better. The patch was out * SIX MONTHS * before the exploit hit. Anyone who had not updated by then got what they deserved.
As a college student (Score:1)
On the educational standpoint, I think it's really hard for the students I am alongside that don't have other database experience to grasp the ideas of Access as a database. It may just be my inst
Neither! (Score:5, Insightful)
The relational model, as invented by E. F. Codd, is heavily grounded in mathematics and set theory, and exists independently of higher-level access interfaces such as SQL.
You can certainly teach people to create and use databases through Access or SQL, in the same way you can (to pick a randomly politically incorrect analogy) teach people to create bombs without telling them how chemical reactions work, but then you're not telling them the full story.
Knowing what a Cartesian product is, or what normalization and the five normal forms are, or what relational integrity is -- all that lets you design better, more flexible and extensible schemas, and interact more intelligently with your data. I know Access developers who don't have a clue about the relational model, and as a result design terrible applications.
As a starting point, I recommend the books by C. J. Date, in particular An Introduction to Database Systems, 7th Edition [amazon.com] ; his book The Database Relational Model: A Retrospective Review and Analysis: A Historical Account and Assessment of E. F. Codd's Contribution to the Field of Database Technology [amazon.com] also looks very interesting.
As an aside, what's surprising is how many people consider Codd's original ideas outdated. The fact is, his ideas surpass what's implemented in database systems at the moment. SQL is a weak language (and SQL99, with its silly object orientation extensions, hasn't made it any better). Database vendors routinely expose underlying implementation issues to the user. They tightly couple physical representation with logical representation, leading, for example, to many people avoiding normalization because it incurs a significant performance penalty with most databases. RDBMSs today are crap [dbdebunk.com].
Re:Neither! (Score:2, Interesting)
I had to scroll to the bottom of the page before anyone even noted the fact that SQL is a language while Access is a database and front end. (with SQL support).
Nevermind all the non relational databases.
Re:Neither! (Score:4, Informative)
So take the parent posters theme to heart:
Teach the how and why first, then teach someones interpretation(implementation) of that.
Re:Neither! (Score:3, Insightful)
In it, they re-iterate their ideas up until now, integrate other stuff, and show how database concepts are completely orthogonal to the object concepts often brought up: datatypes don't matter for relational theory, but they're important for your final database. There's algebra, and then there's math. Relational theory is about the algebra, database s
Re:Neither! (Score:2)
There's algebra, and then there's math. Relational theory is about the algebra, database systems are about math across different domains, using that algebra.
That doesn't make sense. Algebra is math -- it's a branch of mathematics. Database applications implement the relational model.
Re:Neither! (Score:2)
I don't mean to make this about definitions -- but I'd like to explain what I mean. It probably would have been safer for me to say that relational theory is about algebra, not arithmetics. However, the definition above is confusing: it cites mathematics, as a whole, as being about quantities and magnitudes. Database theory doesn't care about magnitudes: they are only one particular type of value that can be manipulated. Arithmetic (and by their definition, math as a whole) is about spe
Re:Neither! (Score:2)
Including Codd himself. Not all of them, but he's certainly put them up for revisiting. Specifically, he's not at all fond anymore of NULL (Rule #3 of the 12 rules). Anyone who believes their own principles are final and immutable is simply deluded.
Re:Neither! (Score:2)
Details of the original model might be up for discussion, but the general principles of the model are not outdated, and that was my point.
Codd actually provided two different "null" values which encode two different meanings: A-MARK (data not available) and I
First Priniples (Score:4, Insightful)
teaching with access is like straight to the calculator. If you dont have it your're stuck, and you don't really understand the interactions between elements then debugging from the help files can be fruitless.
If you are trying to teach SQL (the language) things like stored procedures and triggers are integral not added extras.
Why is IT telling Faculty what to teach? (Score:2)
As say this as an IT worker at a university, who's constantly dealing with faculty who say "Why don't we use Technology X here?".
Re:Why is IT telling Faculty what to teach? (Score:2)
Oracle 9i and 9iAS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oracle 9i and 9iAS (Score:2)
blind leading the blind (Score:2)
sql = structured query language, i.e. a capability that rdbms may implement.
access = m$ attempt at a rdbms 'lite' which implements part of sql
sql is not synonymous with dbms, EVER.
i feel better now. that said, i'd stay the hell away from access if your goal is to teach a *database* class. if students want to learn access, send them to a course about office. if they want to learn about databases, skip
it depends. (Score:2)
Access is nice from a learning perspective in that its easy to install, seperates you from what can be some nasty DB ad
Start with Access and graduate them to others (Score:2)
Re:Start with Access and graduate them to others (Score:2)
Ask a stupid question, get an obvious answer. At least I didn't tell them to teach Postgresql in CS101.
Access is confusing (Score:1)
This sucked. I was confused and had no idea what I was trying to achieve with these queries, and found I was spending most of my time fighting a very lame GUI.
A year later I had to use SQL for some other
One Vote for Access (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's what Access has going for it:
1. It's easy, and it's visual. You can start creating tables and entering data w/o knowing an
Access is good (Score:3, Informative)
That said, I would recommend using Access as a frontend to a real database via ODBC. Then you have the ease of use and baby steps at the beginning as well as the power, seamless transition to better functionality, and (perhaps most important) the hint that Access should rarely be used on its own for all but the most trivial of projects.
NOT ACCESS!!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Access wasn't failing or misbehaving in this - I just couldn't figure out how to make it work using Access's Query builder and just "tweaking" the SQL. I learned Unix, C shell, Bourne shell, C, and Assembler all by grabbing the documentation and a keyboard, and digging in. I know how to figure out a new tool.
But my difficulty in learning SQL from Access made the REAL knowledge I needed even harder to get to: How to normalize data, how to analyze a process and figure out what's really going on, etc.
Building the SQL is the last step in the process, and the easiest. That's what SQL is for - so that the tool doesn't get in the way of purely processing truly abstract data. Real SQL does this beautifully.
I took an Oracle class and learned more in one week than I had with Access in one year. Microsoft's query builder and Access documentation hadn't really helped me.
UML straightened me out - by teaching first the concepts, then the structure of the SQL language, then the syntax. By that time, the syntax was easy and even made sense. Access really held me back.
2. Errors in Access's handling of SQL. Here's an example for you. You can set up test tables and prove this to yourself. Create two tables, each with about four fields. (This occurs in both Access 95 and 2000)
Join them on TWO fields, like this: Be sure to add the extra parans on the join clause - I'll explain why. Access will accept this statement. It will actually work - set up some test data and try it. But save and close the query.
Reopen the query.
You'll notice that join statement loses the outermost set of parans every time you do this. If you compact the database, and Access has to move this query, it will lose another pair.
Eventually, it will become this: Once the "AND" in the join clause is "exposed" without enclosing parans, Access will reject the query, saying "Unsupported join syntax". This will occur to perfectly functional queries that have long been in use, because ACCESS EDITS YOUR SQL WITHOUT YOU KNOWING IT!!!! Once the SQL becomes "invalid", Access won't let you open the query anymore, even in design mode, so you can fix it. There's nothing you can do with it but delete it at that point.
3. Many more reasons.... But I'm coming in late to this article. If you want to hear them, reply to this post with another post. I don't get modded as a troll, when I'm actually showing facts. I also don't want to spend huge amounts of time if I'm too late and it's not going to be read by anyone.
Yeah, yeah... (Score:2)
Those of us who have used Access have learned to accept that Access edits our SQL for us. In fact, it's a nice "feature" if you like to bang something out in a hurry - Access will automagically reformat the query so it looks nicer.
The real issue I have with Access is not the uncommanded editing, but the data corruption. If a database connection is lost during synchronization (phone line gets dropped, etc...), Access will corrupt the database. What's worse is that Access doesn't detect the condition a
Re:Yeah, yeah... (Score:3, Informative)
But to me, a parallel requirement of a development environment is Protect the code at all costs. If a developer writes the SQL by tap-tap-tapping it out on his own, the tool should leave it the way the developer wrote it.
I don't accept as valid that the tool can go into MY code that I wrote with my own
From experience, I'll vote for SQL (Score:2)
I'll also echo other posters who have said that teaching RDB theory is essential. It's
Most important (Score:3, Interesting)
Access is an excellent prototyping tool, which saves you a lot of the typing and repetition involved in developing database apps. But for any just about any useful project they're faced with in real life, SQL knowledge will be a must. If they learn Access, and the price was right (academic discounts), that's all good and fun but the focus of the class should not be to get them hooked on a proprietary, non-scalable database app if you want them to get a good education. Don't let their final project be without coding.
Teaching database concepts (Score:2, Insightful)
School of Communications? IT? (Score:2)
Considering that you're teaching non-major students about databases, learning Access instead of proper SQL gets put in a slightly different context. We're dealing with non-programmers, so Access is probably a better solution for their skillset and scope of int
How many... (Score:2)
On the other hand, without spending more than three seconds of thinking I can come up with more than half a dozen SQL databases, on all kind of operating systems and in all kind of flavours (from the very simple ones to the overpowered ones).
When you look into the real world out there you're stumbling over SQL database everywhere. It's what's used out the
Re:How many... (Score:2)
Access is a SQL database.
Support vs Pedagogy (Score:2)
I work in the CS department at a smallish, private university with a liberal arts focus, and I'm responsible for the Oracle systems used in DB/DBA courses. Your question seems strange to me. Some questions/comments:
1) Why on Earth is the School of Communications teaching database concepts?
2) Why does University IT care if you use SQL or Access?
3) Perhaps University IT cares because it has to run an SQL database server for you. It wants
Why not both? (Score:2)
Moo (Score:2)
To teach a class, it depends what. If just to teach how to query data, Access is cheaper, quicker, and easier. If you want to learn how to use a database, get SQL Server.
Excellent Idea! (Score:2)
As a bonus, perhaps they'll savor the real-world experience of spending $100+ to have Microsoft t
Skip them both (Score:2)
If you're even considering Access, this class is obviously not meant to be applicable to real databases anyway, so why make the students do all the extra work. If they ever need to use Access for a real job, they will just treat it like a complicated Excel spreadsheet anyway.
If anyone complains the curriculum is too simplistic, tell th
What's wrong with Access? (Score:2)
Re:Access is not a DBMS (Score:2)
For teaching students the basics of how dbms's work, Access is a great tool. You can introduce the concepts like joining, primary & foreign keys and indexing without having to shell out $$ for a database server and DBA staff.
The other beauty of it is that students can work on assignments offline or in most public computing facilities. Plenty of students don't have mommy & daddy writing checks for them are stuck in a compute
Access 'Developers' at work, eek! (Score:2)
For the love of god and all the is good, teach SQL, not Access. Part of my job is to convert all the Access DBs into front ends and the designs that I see every day are nightmare-ish at best. General design concepts and best-particies are not followed at all, and forget about transactional controls or any sort of secuirty.
I'd
Re:Access 'Developers' at work, eek! (Score:2)
Is it easy to screw up? Sure. It makes people think they can build a db app. People who no not understand the actual concepts involved in building a secure, stable app.
Now what if the power goes out inbetween the steps?
Now what if the DB is Access?
Answer: Nothing, if the wh
Ease of passing around DB's is useful! (Score:2)
Then again, which complex programs use ONLY standard sql? The vast majority of stuff I've seen uses stored procedures or special functions or special syntaxes (like outer join syntaxes) that are database specific. The difference is that Access is tuned to the small, easy, and simple projects, while others are (necessarily) tuned for performance, scalability, or reliability.
One very big plus with Access is that it
Depends on goal (Score:3, Informative)
Who's the audience and what's your goal?
At my university (medium-sized, well-known Canadian) first-year students have three places to 'start' in CS. New to computers, new to programming and some experience programming.
I've worked with the new to computers crowd, so there is my bias/experience. Database and theory were covered for two weeks in lectures and practical knowledge through three weeks of labs. We used Access - if we didn't, we would have needed triple the time to cover the basic (and maybe a little extra).
More first-year students take this course than there are CS student in the CS program. Their questions are "What is a primary key and why is it there?" NOT "why doesn't my outer join work?".
MySQL is not appropriate for this group. Given an entire course of databases, sure, but now you're targetting the CS major/minor crowd. How many arts/science students would take an entire course on DBs compared to a well-rounded, multiple application course?
Give the minors/majors a real DB. They HAVE to know this stuff at a rudimentary level or their CS degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Give the other students a once over with Access, tell them small companies and mom-and-pop stores use it for VERY small installations and point them to the DB course if they want to know more.
MSDE (Score:2)
Nope. (Score:2)
Having used both of them I would say no. Access is a nice front-end and can be used for small databases. But, in order to do anything with it you need to spend a great deal of time learning how to do access-specific things such as forms and so on, all of which exist so that the underlying relational database cen be kept hidden.
If your goal is to teach the students how to make pretty guis but not understand the basic system, and to loc
What's the course ?gu (Score:2)
For what it's worth, I think it's a mistake for a University to teach people who are likely to end up in a programming career using Access - any prospective employer will
Re:Access versus SQL (Score:2)
you should look at MySQL
Last time I checked MySQL is not ANSI compliant. It doesn't support || for contact operations and quotes should be escaped using \ not double quoted. Doesn't sound ANSI compliant to me.