E
Eric
Does anyone know where I could find a freeware relational database?
Something like MS Access? or better?
Thanks
Eric
Something like MS Access? or better?
Thanks
Eric
G
Global Warming
Eric said:
dBworx is a compact, user-friendly relational database program for
Microsoft Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP whose features include:
Quick and easy database design
Up to 50 fields per database record
Numerous types of fields including calculated, lookup, relational and
memo fields
Ability to search, sort and filter database records
Import and export data to and from other applications
Print reports, labels, charts and documents
Turn dBworx tables into web pages
Customizable help file
Tutorial and example files
Small size (approx. 950K)
No external DLLs, OCXs, or VBXs required
No registry entries
http://www.plworx.net/
G
Gary R. Schmidt
MySQL, postgres, ..., google for "free relational database".Eric said:
You do know that Access is _not_ a relational database, don't you?
Cheers,
Gary B-)
A
Alan
Have they changed it recently then?
What makes Access "_not_ a relational database"?
M
ms
Global said:
It uses the MS installer, no registry entries ??
Mike Sa
B
Bill K. Ramsey
Gary R. Schmidt said:
oh boy!!
Ok from the top
1) MS-Access is not a database; it is a rapid development environment
2) MS-Access **comes with** a "relational" database engine called JET
3) MS-Access can (and often is) used as a front end to the "big names"
in "relational" databases: SQL Server, etc.
What is - or isn't "relational" is for the big boys to debate - the
people with strings of letters after their names. For me - it gets the
job done.
Bill
A
Alan
Bill said:
All true of course. I find the simplest "definition" of a relational
database is one that uses the foreign key constraint to connect (relate)
the tables or relations. To all intents & purposes, MS Access *should*
be regarded as a relational database, even though technically it's an
environment supporting RDB back end(s). But to come out with the
unqualified generalisation that Access is not a RDB demonstrates a
complete lack of knowledge as to what a RDB is at all.
In fact, the earlier versions of one of the free programs (MySQL or
PostgreSQL) were, to my mind, less worthy of wearing the RDB tag than
Access might be. Although these earlier versions operated as RDBs via
the foreign key, they were not mature enough to support enforcement of
the foreign key constraint, and expected the designer/programmer to
introduce these constraints themselves. That said, I personally would
have still described them as RDBs, albeit less functional ones.
G
Gary R. Schmidt
Bill wrote:
[SNIP]Well, as I've only got a couple of letters after my name (B.Sc (Melb),
double major in Computer Science way back in the early to mid 1980's),
and spent 14 or so years producing (primarily ISAM) database code
commercially, I've always felt that anything that did not support being
reduced to fourth normal form as not an RDB.
apologists for their championed not-quite a relational DB being an RDB.
How does it stack up against Codd's book?
versions of ingres and RDB were a bit fluffy around the edges, early
versions of Oracle were not much chop, DB2 took a while to get usable,
Sybase made it around version 10 or 11, MS SQL Server became usable at
version 7, usw.
Does Access support outer joins yet?
I've been out of that part
of the database world for a few years now, and I know I don't do enough
database programming outside Oracle/DB2/SQLServer to be sure anymore
(and I don't really do enough with them, either). Access was just
useless three or four years ago, which was the last time I was involved
in any way with it. Ma
And, IMO, if you _need_ relational stuff then Access is a waste of
effort, you are better off using a more powerful 4GL that hooks into
heavy-duty database. Even Visual Basic with ADO/DAO/"whatever it's
called this week" is a better choice. And I despise Visual Basic.
Cheers,
Gary B-)
[SNIP]Well, as I've only got a couple of letters after my name (B.Sc (Melb),
double major in Computer Science way back in the early to mid 1980's),
and spent 14 or so years producing (primarily ISAM) database code
commercially, I've always felt that anything that did not support being
reduced to fourth normal form as not an RDB.
The "Foreign Key" constraint argument is one that I see as being used by
apologists for their championed not-quite a relational DB being an RDB.
How does it stack up against Codd's book?
Yes, some of those early attemopts were not very good, but then, early
versions of ingres and RDB were a bit fluffy around the edges, early
versions of Oracle were not much chop, DB2 took a while to get usable,
Sybase made it around version 10 or 11, MS SQL Server became usable at
version 7, usw.
Does Access support outer joins yet?
I've been out of that partof the database world for a few years now, and I know I don't do enough
database programming outside Oracle/DB2/SQLServer to be sure anymore
(and I don't really do enough with them, either). Access was just
useless three or four years ago, which was the last time I was involved
in any way with it. Ma
And, IMO, if you _need_ relational stuff then Access is a waste of
effort, you are better off using a more powerful 4GL that hooks into
heavy-duty database. Even Visual Basic with ADO/DAO/"whatever it's
called this week" is a better choice. And I despise Visual Basic.
Cheers,
Gary B-)
A
Alan
Gary said:
OK, firstly I'm sure you *do* know what you're talking about.
As faras a "solid definition" of a RDB goes though, the only one I've seen was
that given by Codd in terms of relational algebra/calculus, which made
me shudder frankly, despite a strongly mathematical background. The
foreign key "loose definition" is the one I've found most satisfactory,
in terms of perhaps "characterising" the type of database something is
(trying to be). Codd also published some 12 "rules" (words, not maths)
that could be used to determine if a DB was truely relational. AFAIK,
there is no DBMS that can fully satisfy them and therefore call itself
truely relational on this basis.
Yes, some of those early attemopts were not very good, but then, early
versions of ingres and RDB were a bit fluffy around the edges, early
versions of Oracle were not much chop, DB2 took a while to get usable,
Sybase made it around version 10 or 11, MS SQL Server became usable at
version 7, usw.
Does Access support outer joins yet?
Frankly, I couldn't answer that, since I'm no fan of Access, having
spent most of my time with Oracle. It wouldn't surprise me if not, if
its strange dialect of SQL is anything to go by though.
I've been out of that part
I also have little to do with it and get the impression that it's still
in the "toy" category, compared against the big back ends anyway.
Agree - a much better solution. I guess size might be an issue here for
a home PC though. I know that even a base install of Oracle 8i was
pretty heavy. I don't relish VB either, but I'm forced to work in it for
some projects. I find its DB connectivity to be quite good & easy to
implement, but that whole approach often ends up being more trouble than
it's worth IMO. For instance, a VB front end might be just fine for
retrieval and firing standard SQL queries out, but for Inserts requiring
validation of data attributes it's a lot of work to match constraints in
the table data definitions - as I said, often more trouble than it's
worth.
B
Bill K. Ramsey
Gary R. Schmidt said:
This kind of condescending attitude gets you nowhere.
I deal with ASP and SQL Server mostly these days, but still use
MS-Access as a reporting tool: IE as a front-end to SQL Server.
This has been debated endlessly elsewhere. I just wanted to make it
clear that MS-Access is a very good development enviroment. Being
relational has nothing to do with it. The market has moved away from
the desktop/file server model, and that's why Microsoft depreciated
JET.
Bill
G
Gary R. Schmidt
The OPs question was about "relationality" and Access. Therefore yourBill said:
taking about it as a development environment was not to the point.
As for being condescending - you appear to lack a sense of irony, I
assume you are an American.
Cheers,
Gary B-)
B
Bob Adkins
Now *THERE's a Canadian attitude! You must be from Australia. ;-)
I have never found a truly usable Freeware DB, so I use Lotus Approach.
SSSSSssssss!
Bob
G
Gary R. Schmidt
Bob Adkins wrote:
[SNIP]
what I want and _just_ that, but don't tell any one!
Cheers,
Gary B-)
[SNIP]
Yep, got it in one! Crack another coldie!!
Well, I've written far too many of them just so they would do exactly
what I want and _just_ that, but don't tell any one!
Cheers,
Gary B-)
B
Bob Adkins
I'm an old dBase III and dBase IV hacker. I have hand coded many, many
applications in dBase. I have keyboard dents in my forehead to prove it.
Bob
S
Signpoet
I useLittle lists at http://www.rkwest.com/archives.shtml.
It makes .dbf files very conveniently.
By the way, these files are easily linked to Open Office.
Connie
It makes .dbf files very conveniently.
By the way, these files are easily linked to Open Office.
Connie
B
burnr
(e-mail address removed) (Signpoet) wrote in @mb-m11.aol.com:
It looks interesting, but I'm getting a "rde.dll" error when trying to
open an existing *.dbf and when making a new one. A google on rde.dll
took me here,
http://homepage2.nifty.com/sakazuki/rde_e.html
This error is with XP Home with Office 2000 installed. Do you have to
install "Ruby" to get the .dll file installed?
It looks interesting, but I'm getting a "rde.dll" error when trying to
open an existing *.dbf and when making a new one. A google on rde.dll
took me here,
http://homepage2.nifty.com/sakazuki/rde_e.html
This error is with XP Home with Office 2000 installed. Do you have to
install "Ruby" to get the .dll file installed?
S
Signpoet
This error is with XP Home with Office 2000 installed
Sorry, I didn't specify that I have Windows98. I don't have Office.
Connie
Sorry, I didn't specify that I have Windows98. I don't have Office.
Connie
B
burnr
Never mind...closed and restarted cleared the error.