Re: Best database(different from the usual "profile")
- From: matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Matthew Jones)
- Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 20:34 +0100 (BST)
FWIW, having to install any database that I don't have, and that used to
include SQL Server which I only have for development of a web app, is a
big turn off. Me, I'd use DBISAM because I have it, because it could be
used in file mode for those small customers, and because it has a true
client server for those larger customers. For the latter, I'd probably
support SQL Server too. But your choice needs to include zero maintenance
options for the small customer, and SQL Server isn't that.
The other issue is price and support. If you require SQL Server or similar
big name, then you will get a lot of support hassle. Number one for me
would be how will your data affect my existing tables etc. I'd worry about
that. If you have a completely built-in option (e.g. DBISAM), then you can
say "it's all taken care of - nothing to worry about", but for the larger
customers with a support dept you can give them the SQL Server option.
There's a lot more to this than a "name".
/Matthew Jones/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Best database(different from the usual "profile")
- From: Jay Boisseau
- Re: Best database(different from the usual "profile")
- From: Lauchlan M
- Re: Best database(different from the usual "profile")
- References:
- Re: Best database(different from the usual "profile")
- From: Andrea Raimondi
- Re: Best database(different from the usual "profile")
- Prev by Date: Re: Portal Builder 1.0 Alpha 1.0 released
- Next by Date: Re: ANN: CD Bundle Annual Special Price Offer
- Previous by thread: Re: Best database(different from the usual "profile")
- Next by thread: Re: Best database(different from the usual "profile")
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
