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 access of a > flattish-file-format by a computer doing it's own work of accessing the > files directly (assuming smallish small-company files at this point, > versus large user-base files). > > > speed Access and ODBC are not the way to go. > > True, but still have to deal with convincing and converting users who > get fed their information via slick-glossy magazines, so at this point, > there is still the stigma to overcome and the user-base needs to be > introduced to alternatives slowly.
LOL! I have certainly seen that! That and the FUD people spread about and some people manufacture on their own! > The odbc allows my options to remain open as to how to implement the > webstuff, and possibly other alternatives of access. The alternative > was accessing DBF files directly from the server, therfore allowing me > to also read DBF files via linux and eventually the webserver stuff. > > Your suggestion about database corruption is a definite drop of DBF and > committing with odbc. Thanks Good luck!
