On 2/21/06, Jose Da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On February 21, 2006 12:48 pm, Jay Sprenkle wrote:
> > Sqlite has been very fast for me. If you need raw blazing
>
> Well, sqlite is definitely fast in relation to other sqls, but every sql
> has overhead, and they all can't match direct
On February 21, 2006 12:48 pm, Jay Sprenkle wrote:
> Sqlite has been very fast for me. If you need raw blazing
Well, sqlite is definitely fast in relation to other sqls, but every sql
has overhead, and they all can't match direct access of a
flattish-file-format by a computer doing it's own
On 2/21/06, Jose Da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was a bit hesitant about using sqlite when I read elsewhere that a sql
> type database is about 15x slower than direct access.
> However, since this will eventually be multiuser, the
> access-trashing-aspect is definitely something I want to
I was a bit hesitant about using sqlite when I read elsewhere that a sql
type database is about 15x slower than direct access.
However, since this will eventually be multiuser, the
access-trashing-aspect is definitely something I want to avoid. :-)
Thanks, that's a good suggestion.
If anyone
That might be a good way to get some basic tools over the top
of the database. Access does tend to trash its database files if used
by multiple users on a network. If you connect to sqlite files via odbc
they should be ok though. Backup your mdb file to be safe!
On 2/19/06, Jose Da Silva
If read a bit already and see limitations and benefits in SQlite.
Our office still wants to use the GUI present in MS-Access.
I like the simplicity of maintaining SQLite plus it's rollback features
etc. Later, there are aspirations for a webbrowser interface to same
database.
Anyone have
6 matches
Mail list logo
