One database has 18 fields, the other 24; the fields are of different types, and all the fields are fully searchable, both singly and in combination with other fields. There are multiple layouts for each database, each with a different function. I use them to keep track of thousands of documents in hard copy and electronic form.
My co-workers think that an Excel spreadsheet--with four fields--is just fine to keep track of the documents that will be posted online. They don't think that ANY database--or Excel, either--is needed to keep track of all the thousands of other documents. (Yeah, I know it's weird. But it's a good weird; it makes me try harder to find another job, which is not an easy task in this economy.) --Constance -----Original Message----- From: Computer Guys Announcements and Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Piwowar Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 8:12 PM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] How stable is Excel? >For nine years, I've been working with two FileMaker Pro databases that >keep track of several thousand documents (including titles, >descriptions, categories, authors, etc.). They've been virtually >crash-proof and easy to modify. There are nearly 5,000 records (on >separate pages) in these databases. You did not state whether these files were related or just two flat files. If what you have is a relational database then moving it to Excel is a very bad idea. Do your FMP databases do much data validation? This is harder to implement this in Excel and you will be much more likely to have bad data creeping into your database. You did not mention how many fields each record has and how the user relates to the information. Is it important to see the contents of many fields at a glance or is it okay to string them out into long rows. Are they prepared to put in the labor to create forms? The basic Excel forms are a bad joke. If they need forms of any complexity MS will quickly suck them into Access. So you will be back in a database. Only difference is that instead of using a good database you will be using a terrible database. You did not mention if you have any large text fields. Excel limits fields to 255 characters, FMP's limit is 65,000. Do you need to do heavy data analysis on the data in the databases? Excel does this better with its graphing and pivot tables. >Would an excel spreadsheet this size be stable or usable? Has anyone >else had experience with databases of this size? 5,000 is not a big number unless there are many fields per record. I have made Excel spreadsheets with close to 65,000 rows and almost 200 columns. Excel was very slow and unstable during data import, but afterwards settled down and worked just fine. >And does anyone else have any talking points on why it's a bad idea to >replace a perfectly reliable, crash-proof database with an Excel >spreadsheet? Ultimately the choice depends on how the data is to be used. If is just a big table with a few columns then Excel will do fine. If there are many fields per record they may soon find themselves hamstrung. They may find that information that is easy to view with a database query will take more work to extract in a spreadsheet. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Thomas Piwowar - Thomas J. Piwowar & Associates, Inc. electronic publishing training and consulting 1710 Rhode Island Ave NW - Washington DC - 20036 V:202-223-6813 - Fx:202-223-5059 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.tjpa.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************************************ * ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <== * ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ * List archive from 1/1/2000 is on the MARC http://marc.info/?l=computerguys-l * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ * ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <== * ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ * List archive from 1/1/2000 is on the MARC http://marc.info/?l=computerguys-l * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived ************************************************************************
