On 10/07/2007, at 3:19 PM, Cedric Meyerowitz wrote:
When it comes to other SQL products I have no experience. All I
can say is
not all the current SQL Medical software products have the same
complexity
or problems updating. The one I'm using is very easy & almost fool
proof to
upgrade.
My only concerns with BP are the overhead of a database server on
each workstation and the storage of binary data (like scanned images)
in database blobs, which makes backup and restore much more time and
storage consuming than it should be, and must have an effect on speed
of operation in a large example if only through fragmentation of the
2GB blobs.
Please don't substitute SQL (Structured Query Language) with MS-SQL
(Microsoft's database server). The latter is only one of many
database implementations that use SQL.
I find MS-SQL the hardest database server to work with. Like many MS
products it is pointlessly over-complicated and this makes tasks that
should be elementary and fail-safe (like backup and restore),
sometimes complex and unreliable. This is not a criticism of BP which
I find elegant and a comparative joy to work with. If this is what
Frank can do with MS-SQL I only wish him the time and incentive to
develop for a really efficient server like SQLBase or perhaps
PostgreSQL.
cheers,
Peter.
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
