John Paul Ashenfelter wrote: > From: "Jim Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>It's interesting they'd charge you more for MySQL than Access (since I >>assume they'll have more tech support issues with Access ;) > > Actually it's pretty straightforward why it would cost more -- you have to > set up users, dbs, etc in MySQL (or MS-SQL) -- you can't simply copy up a > file. In both cases you need to set up the datasource connection (ODBC/CF) > but that's it for Access.
In both cases, it is just a matter of writing a template that will do this for you. >>SQL Server might be a better choice - it should be able to recognize >>your tables/datatypes from Access without any problems, and if you're >>using things like transactions, the migration should be fairly >>painless. _Fairly_ painless, not necessarily totally painless. > > Unless you foolishly picked boolean fields in Access. Access even converts > bit fields (0/1) in SQL Server to (0/-1) when you link tables through the > ODBC driver. But other than that (and any code that dealt with booleans) > you're in good shape. The Access/MS SQL Server conversion might be extra difficult with booleans in Access, but that is an MS SQL Server shortcomming. The problem is that MS SQL Server does not recognize the SQL literals TRUE and FALSE which Access recognizes, but other databases do not suffer from this shortcomming. Jochem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=i:4:137616 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
