MS Access: a true RDBMS

[Bob Miller]

Who cares? Does it even matter? As long as it does what you want it
to, fine. I haven't been dissappointed (frustrated? yes) with it yet
and I push it to the limit. The apps that I write save others time and
that is what it is all about, making people more efficient in their
jobs.
On the ohter hand, if it is really that important, we could all chip in
and hire PC Datasheet to answer the question. I mean, wow, he has over
1000 satisfied clients. Sorry folks, I just got through reading some
comments that resulted from one of his "helpful" posts and couldn't
resist.

 

[ByteMyzer]

Why isn't chocolate considered a vegetable, if chocolate comes from

cocoa beans, and all beans are a vegetable?

Chocolate comes from the CACAO bean (pronounced ka-KOW), not a "cocoa" bean
(Yes, they butchered that technicality in the movie "Charlie and the
Chocolate Factory" but the book had it right). Otherwise, a good question.

 

[sinister]

HI again,

The definition of "true RDBMS", which is what you asked, is as I
responded. No ifs, ands, or buts. 8)

As to your second question: it depends. I, and many others, write Access
apps against a client server database, in my case, an Oracle server.
Access comes _packaged_ with the MS Jet database engine, which is not a
client/server package; it's a file server system. There are folks who can
better answer that question (which, again, is not what you originally
asked) than I can.

If you don't get any satisfactory answers and it seems one or two people
have interpreted this thread as a troll, you can google
comp.databases.ms-access for "file server" and you're sure to get some
excellent posts on what that is all about.

Thanks; you pretty much answered my question.

And thanks for being one of the (very) few respondents who wasn't a total
**shole.

Cheers,

S

 

[sinister]

When it comes down to writing an application, I've never hemmed and hawed
and contemplated my navel while pondering whether or not Access is a
"true" relational database. I'll let the acadamics decide that in their
ivory towers and let them get bogged down in the mundane while solving and
adding nothing new.

Others have asked this question before. Sinister could simply do what
normal people do and google his question.

Did google. Didn't come up with that much on the first try or two.

 

[Lyle Fairfield]

That statement is total crap!

Results 1 - 10 of about 26,800 for true rdbms MS-Access. (0.06 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 19,000 for true rdbms JET. (0.04 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 50,200 for true Relational Database Management
System MS-Access. (0.19 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 831,000 for true Relational Database Management
System JET. (0.17 seconds)

 

[Lyle Fairfield]

And thanks to you for posting such a stimulating and intellectually
demanding topic that has been hashed and rehashed in this and other
groups no more than a thousand times.
When you are happy with your understanding of it I trust you will move
right on to:
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Hope this helps!

 

[Tim Marshall]

And thanks for being one of the (very) few respondents who wasn't a total

Well, the thing is, we occasionally get a cross post from one of the
theory groups that tend to trash Access. I don't know about other
specific groups, but on the oracle hierarchy, when someone asks a
question pertaining to Access connectivity to Oracle or something
related, almost inevitably one or more of the really experienced gurus
will say something to the effect of "step 1, change your development
platform". This is all crap, really. The difficulty with Access is
that it is widely available and as a result of its ease of use (with at
least beginner level stuff) you *do* get lots of people who know nothing
about the relational model making up absolute garbage and calling
themselves developers. This tends to slant the opinions of developers
of other platforms, very unfairly, in my opinion. Access is an
excellent development tool, regardless of what database engine is baing
used.

Anyway, a lot of the snubbing of Access often starts with opening
statements resembling your question. I think that's why you've gotten
some negative responses. 8)

 

[Randy Harris]

And thanks for being one of the (very) few respondents who wasn't a total
**shole.

You show up in this newsgroup, calling yourself sinister, asking a question
for which you get several appropriate answers, then insist that wasn't the
question you wanted answered, you were already familiar with that, but
something entirely different. Based on that, everyone is a "total **shole".
Better look in the mirror pal.

 

[salad]

That statement is total crap!

Results 1 - 10 of about 26,800 for true rdbms MS-Access. (0.06 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 19,000 for true rdbms JET. (0.04 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 50,200 for true Relational Database Management
System MS-Access. (0.19 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 831,000 for true Relational Database Management
System JET. (0.17 seconds)

Sinister was looking under Google Images.

 

[Terry Kreft]

Yes, if you take out the word true, but then there isn't a true RDBMS system
out there.

 

[Larry Linson]

Uh, no.

From _Fundamentals of Database Systems_, Elmasri & Navathe, 2nd edition, p.
2: "A database management system (DBMS) is a collection of programs that
enable users to create and maintain a database."

There's certainly nothing in the definition you quote that requires a
"server DB", only a "collection of programs".

The Jet database engine may, even without the Access front end, fulfill that
definition -- because with a number of different "tools" you can use Jet to
enable users to create and maintain a database. You can do so with most any
software that uses VBA, with the separate VB product (classic or .NET),
various versions of C, Delphi, and others. Certainly the combination of
Access (the user interface and development tool) and Jet (the database
engine) satisfies the definition.

Jet is a "file-server" database engine as opposed to what is normally
considered a "server" database engine (e.g., Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle,
Informix, etc.).

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

 

[David W. Fenton]

Uh, no.

From _Fundamentals of Database Systems_, Elmasri & Navathe, 2nd
edition, p. 2: "A database management system (DBMS) is a
collection of programs that enable users to create and maintain a
database."

You're referring to the relational _data model_, which is indeed a
mathematical concept.

You asked a question about an RDBMS and supply a definition of a
DBMS to refute my statement.

Are you an idiot or a mere troll?

Secondly, even your definition does not require tha the "collection
of programs" be running on different machines, or that the data
handling be divided between different modules. Jet itself has
separate libraries for handling data (the Jet DLLs are programs
separate from Access for processing the data), they just can't be
run on a remote machine.

Your question is nonsense to begin with since you don't provide any
context for your definition of RDBMS. It's like asking "how long is
a piece of string?"

 

[David W. Fenton]

Anyway, a lot of the snubbing of Access often starts with opening
statements resembling your question. I think that's why you've
gotten some negative responses.

He got negative responses because it was a bloody stupid question,
precisely because he didn't provide any definitions to make it
possible to *answer* the stupid question.

Of course, if he *had* provided definitions, then there'd have been
no reason to *ask* the question.

Hence, my conclusion that he was a troll.

His tendency to call people assholes tends to confirm it for me.

And, of course, your answer was mistaken in the first place, since
you answered the server question by talking about Access as a
development platform, instead of as an RDBMS. You made a hash of the
answer by mixing up Access and Jet, which is precisely the problem
that you were criticizing in your citation of the Oracle yahoos.

 

[sinister]

Well, the thing is, we occasionally get a cross post from one of the
theory groups that tend to trash Access. I don't know about other
specific groups, but on the oracle hierarchy, when someone asks a question
pertaining to Access connectivity to Oracle or something related, almost
inevitably one or more of the really experienced gurus will say something
to the effect of "step 1, change your development platform". This is all
crap, really. The difficulty with Access is that it is widely available
and as a result of its ease of use (with at least beginner level stuff)
you *do* get lots of people who know nothing about the relational model
making up absolute garbage and calling themselves developers. This tends
to slant the opinions of developers of other platforms, very unfairly, in
my opinion. Access is an excellent development tool, regardless of what
database engine is baing used.

Anyway, a lot of the snubbing of Access often starts with opening
statements resembling your question. I think that's why you've gotten
some negative responses. 8)

Perhaps.

IMHO the amount of bandwidth spent by people in this group demonstrating
that they have extremely thin skins after *one* post on my part is pretty
remarkable.

 

[rkc]

IMHO the amount of bandwidth spent by people in this group demonstrating
that they have extremely thin skins after *one* post on my part is pretty
remarkable.

Is Access a true RDBMS system?

 

[Lyle Fairfield]

That is why all my replies have been suksinct. Bandwidht is so
important these days! I am getting these messages as bitts translated
into native drumb rithms. When a "beat" is "sent" a device hears that
and turns on a light bulb. The freakwency of the light bulb flashing is
recorded on an continuously fed infinte roll of light senstive toilet
papper as black smudge marks. This paper is fed through a modified data
card reader which interprets the smudges and displays the messages in
sefen aboriginal languages using a prehistoric picture symbol for each
sylable. Then we get Uncle Felix to come over and he tells us what they
say.
To send we have to reverse the whole prosess.
So it's important not to say anything beyond the bare minimum of what's
needed.
Sorry for any spelling errors here but Uncle Felix is pretty well
smashed tonight!

 

[Randy Harris]

IMHO the amount of bandwidth spent by people in this group demonstrating
that they have extremely thin skins after *one* post on my part is pretty
remarkable.

You are being entirely disingenuous. You received replies to your original
post that were entirely appropriate, including at least one that attempted
to help answer your question. You disputed that reply and incorrectly
suggested that DB server was somehow part of what constitutes a "true
RDBMS". To support your erroneous argument, you provided a book definition
of something other than what you had originally asked about. You then went
on to call people assholes. Now you suggest that people have "extremely
thin skins after *one* post on my part". It was certainly not one post that
caused people to take offense. If you had been honest in your questions in
the first place, you would have received meaningful answers.

 

[Tim Marshall]

And, of course, your answer was mistaken in the first place, since
you answered the server question by talking about Access as a
development platform, instead of as an RDBMS. You made a hash of the
answer by mixing up Access and Jet, which is precisely the problem
that you were criticizing in your citation of the Oracle yahoos.

Well, OK, but I would appreciate it if you would tell me where and how I
was wrong.

Are you saying Access itself is a database? What is Jet then? I've
based my answers on comments and discussion I've read here over the
years. And that is that Access is a development platform that comes
bpackaged with the Jet database engine and that it uses Jet as a means
to manipulate records displayed, say in a datasheet or form. IE, when I
use a Passthrough query to bring Oracle data from the server to a client
screen and I use the excellent built in filters that I am using Jet to
manipulate data on the client.

Thanks in advance to you or anyone that can straighten me out on this.
Actually, given the tremendous amount of negativity on this thread,
perhaps if you can explain my "hash" and what would make it right, then
perhaps something positive can come of things, after all?

As far as the original poster goes, you may note I thought the question
was a homework question. Nevertheless, I prefer to treat new people by
assuming they are genuinely curious (or at VERY worst, frustrated) as
opposed to hostile. It's actually the way I try to live in all aspects
of life and I've done well from it. I'm a happy bird, at least. 8)

 

[Terry Kreft]

Lyle,
I have a FelixSefen translation algorithm you might be able to use, mind you
have to use a spearchucker on it afterwards as the Felix half of it is
always smashed <g>.

The only problem with it, apart from that, is slight contextual errors. You
know the one with the Ibis stood on one leg which can mean "you are a rare
brilliance in the dark" or "you have the brain and mannerisms of a baboon"
that's caused problems on occasion in e-mails to clients.

 

[Bob Miller]

Did anyone use Paradox or the other one (I have even forgotten its name)
before Access? Access brought RDBMS to the masses. Users of Access are
better for it. For all of its faults and shortcomings it is the best
for all of us from novices to experts. We make it what we want it to
be.
And besides, it gets PC Datasheet 1050 satisfied clients!