Is access unstable

[FreddyFord]

We are developing a relatively small database (Maximum 1-2000 records) to track consultants we appoint and our IT department has questioned our choice to use access as they say it is unstable. Has anyone got any thoughts on this.

Here are the concerns.

1.Where is this Database going to be located, on our network or externally?

2.I don think access is the best solution bearing in mind it becomes unstable if too much data is added, would SQL not be better? How much data will this DB hold at its maximum?

 

[Galaxiom]

IT departments are notorious for bagging Access. It is a way to bignote themselves by putting everyone else down. Effectively they simply destroy opportunity and offer nothing in its place.

If you have a lot of concurrent users or need fine grained security then a server based backend is a good idea.

Access is not generally a good solution to offsite users.

 

[FreddyFord]

Thanks and I agree. Its fine saying use SQL but we know access and can use it.

1000 records maximum. 10 users that wont be using at same time all based 1 location.

Access best bet?

 

[Mile-O]

Thanks and I agree. Its fine saying use SQL but we know access and can use it.

1000 records maximum. 10 users that wont be using at same time all based 1 location.

Access best bet?

Quickest bet, I'd say. Apart from being notoriously negative towards Access, IT departments are also notoriously slow in providing a solution, if at all.

For such a small dataset, I'd say it was fine. As long as there are backup procedures in place on the off-chance the database becomes corrupted in some way.

 

[ButtonMoon]

To be fair to your IT department, it appears that their concerns are actually about the Jet/ACE database and not about Access as an application. There are legitimate reasons why it might be good advice to avoid a Jet/ACE database and use SQL Server instead. The IT Department's concern is perfectly understandable and proper if they are required to support and be responsible for security, data integrity and availability of your system.

In this case they have suggested an alternative: "SQL" (SQL Server?). It's very easy to build an Access application that uses a database on a SQL DBMS. If the DBMS environment already exists and is supported, secured, backed-up and otherwise managed for you then that might well be a much easier/cheaper/more resilient/more supportable option than building the entire solution using Access alone. Just my 0.02

 

[namliam]

our IT department has questioned our choice to use access as they say it is unstable. Has anyone got any thoughts on this.

PFFFFT ask ANY IT department to use Access for anything... this will be their answer. Instead you should hire 10 consultants for 6 months and develop something anything on oracle with a web front end and Datawarehouse costing 1 million instead of your db that you can develop for 1k and be happy :banghead:

1) Should be on your network, never externaly
2) Again typical IT retoric, unstable my arse.... Yes IF you have huge data running thru it exceeding the 2 gig limit per database, even then you can split the database and run 4 gig database.

The biggest issue IT has -usually- is that an access database is like an Excel sheet, created by non-it-people. Therefor they cant support it.
Then again they dont NEED to support it if you have an average user that knows his way around an excel sheet or access database.

Truth be told IMHO the average IT person is more afraid of Access than the actual concerns they voice.... worse yet the "biggest" issue of access usually is left out of the equation/discussion. Biggest gain of access, if you have someone that knows his way around it is you can develop a suitable solution on short order for low budget, which is the threat to IT because they need a conciderably larger budget and wont start thinking about delevering anything before they start with Functional and Technical specs, which wont start for 3 months anyways because of current reports.
Result in 6 months time you may get an estimate of when they expect to START the work (which may take another 6 months) and it will probably cost an arm and a leg because they did the analisys already.

** Yes I am speaking from experience but probably over stating some of the time/money requirements

*** Yes this is one of my "speaking chair" subjects

Depending on what you exactly want to do, if it is a simple list of 1000 consultants when started/ended/etc.... Perhaps even a simple excel sheet, oddly enough IT wont object to that

 

[ButtonMoon]

namliam,

You are so wrong in so many ways. IT Department are presumably the ones charged by the executive officers of the company with responsibility for information security, integrity and availability. They therefore ARE responsible for supporting information systems and being accountable for them - perhaps even ultimately in law. It may not be the OP's job on the line but it might be the CIO's. In today's regulated and litigious world it is irresponsible to dismiss IT's involvement as empty "rhetoric". This stuff is important. The statements made by "IT" quoted here were too short, probably off-the-cuff and could have been expressed better but may simply have been a clumsy attempt to warn someone off. The concern is legitimate even if the terms in which it was expressed are open to misinterpretation and question.

Your suggestion that alternatives will cost more is certainly unrealistic. As I read it the IT department are proposing a different database technology, not necessarily a completely different stack. If the DBMS and/or alternative technology is already in place and supported then it could very well work out cheaper to leverage that existing platform rather than build an entirely non-integrated, monolithic Access-only application. Start up costs and TCO could very likely be lower that way.

Your other comments about taking longer to start and to finish the project are assumptions about the people concerned and their availability/productivity/competence. Correct or not, that has nothing to do with the technology used.

 

[jdraw]

I would add that it isn't so much that IT suppresses Access, but most end users/quasi developers have no practical experience nor training in Data Management, Database Management nor Security.

I have been in meetings (long ago now) where user areas were buying things like Excel or Lotus123 and then copying data from old reports and developing "graphs" to show Pie Charts etc of various facts.

Not only were there typos and algorithm issues, but some of the reports were months old. So it didn't matter how fancy the charts were - the data was simply out of date or worse, incorrect or misunderstood.

Our approach was if you want to be able to manipulate current data into graphs, trend analysis etc, then IT will create a "PointinTime" database for you on a regular basis. This data was created from the online corporate database at Monthend and Quarterend. User developers, along with some IT staff worked out the ground rules.
Data in the Monthend and Quarterend databases was read only. Users spent more time understanding the data as it was used in/affecting their "business" and less time "creating databases". The users formed groups to share their "creations" and were encouraged to give presentations to management and IT on what had been accomplished. Some groups who recognized they used the same basic data - only different subsets - worked with IT to bring in developers to build a common system that could be shared by the individual groups. The real difference was the subset of data (trade statistics and finances primarily) that each used. It was very interesting to watch as some analysis and design identified things that the users didn't really know --who else used the data; where the data came from; what the data really meant.... Also there was an evolving appreciation of backup, standards, design and documentation.

I even recall one happy user who said something along this - "I'm sure glad you didn't let us do what we begged you to let us do". Nice compliment.