News and Reviews > Mini-Reviews by Members

Review of VistaDB

<< < (3/5) > >>

wraith808:
wraith, this is something I have been thinking about also.  You mentioned giving MS Access a go, and I'm in that phase right now.  What did you feel was disappointing about Access?
-superboyac (May 28, 2011, 07:35 PM)
--- End quote ---

1. The need for some sort of access runtime
2. The use of SQL that is different from T-SQL, which I am used to
3. The efficiency in large database operations
4. The lack of support for triggers, stored procedures, and functions
5. The lack of ability to use SQL CLR procedures/functions

In short, VistaDB is limiting in some ways next to SQL Server, but Access is limited in almost every way next to SQL Server.  As Renegade says, it's a valid option in the limits of what it's built for.  But building custom applications, I find myself too often limited by it, and I really don't want to do a full scale installation just because I'm using a database.

<snip />

EDIT: or, as you mention, you might be able to do it with a recursive CTE, but that's (a) nonstandard SQL, and (B) non-supported here anyway.

<snip />

Anyway, thanks for this review. I've considered VistaDB, so seeing a step-by-step in-depth review is very interesting to me.
-CWuestefeld (May 28, 2011, 09:25 PM)
--- End quote ---

Yeah... I use that bit of code (or something similar) to do this in SQL server, so I can do it there, and because this is just *so* close to SQL Server, not having it was a bit more jarring than not seeing that facility in Access, for example.  The penalties of expectation, because everything else so far is *so* good.

And thanks for the suggestions/feedback.  If there's anything in particular you're interested in, let me know!

Shades:
For Oracle and MS SQL Server, their footprint is simply massive. The download and installation is again a major thing to deal with.
-Renegade (May 24, 2011, 06:30 PM)
--- End quote ---

You can say that again.I install mostly basic Oracle 10/11 databases (practically all features are turned off), but still you lose 700 Mb of RAM per database. But the "fun" doesn't stop there, because it runs quite some supporting software, losing a total of 900 Mb of RAM.

I don't know about the footprint of MS-SQL, but I don't think that it will be far off as both Oracle and MS-SQL have a big feature-set.

However, it is dead easy to install the XE (express) version of Oracle, it is even configured quite fast and stable right out of the box as well. And its web-interface is quite workable too. So I do not share the notion of databases being hard to install.

Of course, an professional product will only "shine" in professional hands.

wraith808:
So I do not share the notion of databases being hard to install.
-Shades (May 28, 2011, 10:59 PM)
--- End quote ---

Hard to install is a pretty relative thing.  If I'm dealing with something that needs the overhead of a client/server architecture, then I'm willing to deal with the headaches that come from supporting unusual events that come from such a complex installation.  But dealing with a desktop application that I'm going to distribute for free/donations/very little, the reduction in hassle that comes from a minimal install involving only an xcopy is pure gold- made even more valuable by the fact that you can bypass even this by embedding it in your application.

Going back again to my wife's school curriculum, I installed it with absolutely no problems.  The first time my wife did it, she had problems, that if it wasn't for me being there, would have resulted in some sort of support time.  After I showed her a couple of things that the installation manual didn't go over, she was able to install the next years with no problem.  But that initial hump would be completely eliminated if the database engine was such a low impact installation that all of this was eliminated.

superboyac:
I agree wraith.  This is something I was introduced to last year when i started working with sql databases in a corporate environment.  Thanks for putting into words!  Yes, why can't a database installation be more simple?  Not everyone that works with databases needs a multi gigabyte monster.  We just want a database, some rows and columns...on a very small, personal scale.  This was part of my initial attraction to Infoqube, and still is.  It's a few megabytes, and it allows an individual to do a lot of pretty neat database type things with it, without the headache of the multi-gigabyte installs, the programming languages, the help manuals, the other documentations, the extremely confusing descriptions and vague corporate technical jargon (just tell me what it does!!!!).

Also, somewhat related...I'm not a programmer, but I've noticed that my favorite Delphi programmers write more responsive applications than those who make programs in other frameworks like .net.  So if I were to get into small application building projects (which I may) I would like to use Delphi.  Is there a similar small standalone database utility like VistaDB for Delphi?

wraith808:
VistaDB isn't a utility, it's a complete DBMS system.  The part above is more akin to SSMS - I'm getting to the crunchy parts in a bit.  And just like SQL Server Management Studio is just a tool to allow you to manage SQL Server, the tool above is for that purpose.  VistaDB as a database would be able to be used with Delphi (.NET) just as I'm doing now.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page