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 is interested in compiling the latest sqliteodbc (0.65), I've got a modified configure file to replace the 0.65 sqliteodbc configure file located at: http://www.joescat.com/configure.tar.gz (sorry, no webpage setup due to lack of time) :-( The modified configure file defaults to use sqlite3 versus sqlite2 headers and information, and you don't have-to-have sqlite2 installed to get past the configure command, plus you don't need to type options on the configure line if your sqlite is located in default file locations: ./configure make make install the sqliteodbc authour already has been notified and been given a copy now too, so not necessary to send multiple copies his way (since this is a mailinglist and I'm sure several people will want to mention it). ;-) On February 21, 2006 07:15 am, Jay Sprenkle wrote: > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 recommendations or suggestions to this scenario: > > Windows(MS-Access)<---office network--->(sqliteodbc-sqlite)linux
