Thread: To Create or Not to Create multiple backends
Started 1 month, 2 weeks ago by genesis
while a single access database file has a size limitation of 2 gigabyte, I have been given two options in my previous post and those are:
a. upsize to sql server or
b. you can always create multiple backends.
And so since I am not yet familiar with nor have backgrounds nor have learned about sql server yet, I opted to take option b.
however, in my recent post here in the forum, I was ...
I use multiple back ends a lot. I have for years without any issues. I even have back end in different formats. Some table in an Access database and some table in an SQL server.
With multiple back ends, you can not enforce RI between table in different back ends. You have to write your own code to enforce it.
I am really curious:
What was the reason not to have multiple back ends?
They said that creating multiple back ends would give me difficulty in the future. I cant remember whats the difficulty they said to me.
Maybe its about the relationship of tables.
What do you mean about
Quote:
With multiple back ends, you can not enforce RI between table in different back ends. You have to write your own code to enforce it....
Ensuring RI is a corner stone of good DB design along with normalisation
Failure to understand either of these concepts will ultimately lead you into a world of pain.
just to clarify
genesis posted some jpegs in the "how to talk to a programmer thread"
what i think he has, is a SEPARATE backend database for EACH table, because he is concerned about the 2GB limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky
.....
what i think he has, is a SEPARATE backend database for EACH table, because he is concerned about the 2GB limit
Is that approach not going to complicate the task of maintaining referential integrity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky
.....
what i think he has, is a SEPARATE backend database for EACH table, because he is concerned about the 2GB limit
Is that approach not going to complicate the task of maintaining referential integrity?
thats what i said, among other things - but he seems determined to continue in this way ... i may have it wrong, but thats what it seemed to me.
i thought the "front end" he was using was more designed to provide a single interface to a group of databases, but i got the impression he was using it in a different way, as above
thanks for giving out the meaning John Big Booty.
Quote:
what i think he has, is a SEPARATE backend database for EACH table, because he is concerned about the 2GB limit
that is true Dave. that is my intention. I havent found problem on my RI as of the moment. And another site I would like to mention is that I was one program that I have ...
Quote: Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky ..... what i think he has, is a SEPARATE backend database for EACH table, because he is concerned about the 2GB limit Is that approach not going to complicate the task of maintaining referential integrity?
Quote: Originally Posted by genesis May I ask if you have problems with RI there or how did you establish your RI? I mean did you enable your RI? Was you database working fine with or without RI? Did you have integrity issues? I always enforce RI. If I can let the database engine do it, that is the easiest and IMHO the best way. So whenever possible , you keep all tables in a single database that are getting data entry from the users. As the...
Quote: Originally Posted by HiTechCoach I figure that was the case. I was responding to the fact that you think your databases have been working just fine. I was recommend that you take a copy of your database and create all the RI relationships. If you can enable RI, then your database was working properly. If not, then your database has integrity issues. yes I have tested it without the RI and I created query and codes and it work just fine...
thats what i said, among other things - but he seems determined to continue in this way ... i may have it wrong, but thats what it seemed to me. i thought the "front end" he was using was more designed to provide a single interface to a group of databases, but i got the impression he was using it in a different way, as above
If the tables are growing to the extent that they all need separate databases, isn't that an indication that they might grow further so that some of them may individually become too large? If it's important enough to be planning by splitting them all out, I think it's important enough to deserve migration to a more powerful DB solution.
Quote: Originally Posted by genesis I do not establish Referential Integrity. Why not? It makes it easy to ensure you don't get a mass of orphaned records which can adversely affect performance. And as you have already said a relational DB should enforce RI.
If the tables are growing to the extent that they all need separate databases, isn't that an indication that they might grow further so that some of them may individually become too large? If it's important enough to be planning by splitting them all out, I think it's important enough to deserve migration to a more powerful DB solution.
Researching on pdf/html report generation for #rails .... Researching on pdf/html report generation for #rails . Ruport seems to have good support for multiple backends and outputs. Ideas are welcome 5:17 AM Nov 5th from Echofon
Thread profile page for "To Create or Not to Create multiple backends" on http://www.access-programmers.co.uk.
This report page is a snippet summary view from a single thread "To Create or Not to Create multiple backends", located on the Message Board at http://www.access-programmers.co.uk.
This thread profile page shows the thread statistics for: Total Authors, Total Thread Posts, and Thread Activity