转换为SQL服务器多少钱 [英] How much to convert to SQL server
问题描述
嗨：
我有一个正在运行的Access数据库（以某种形式或另一种形式）
，用于几个不同的客户端一些年。现在一个新的客户端已经请求使用SQL服务器后端实现
。我正在做什么
我最好学习SQL服务器，并且我打算按原样保留前端
，只是链接到SQL服务器后端，但这里是'
a基本问题：
数据库的前端链接到两个后端。其中一个后端有完全静态的数据，因此在一个全无安装的安装中，它与前端一起位于C盘上。只有第二个后端在服务器上位于
。
现在，我应该将两个后端转换为SQL服务器，还是只转换为
服务器？原因，优点，缺点？
TIA。
Jan
您的新客户是想要转换的客户，并且可能是支付您转换数据库的
。你应该问客户什么
_they_想要什么，但是如果他们想要什么东西就准备好逻辑参数
" flakey"
以下内容仅适用于使用ODBC驱动程序的Access MDB链接到
SQL服务器数据库：
通常保留相对不变的查找表访问本地访问
申请 - 美国各州是一个很好的例子，公司结构
（部门，部门）是另一个。我个人认为没有必要将
静态数据迁移到后端，并且必须通过
访问它可能比我更慢类似网络。
尽管如此，客户可能有自己的理由（甚至是偏见）和想法
关于什么可以合理地移动到后端。
Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
" Jan" < ja*@stempelconsulting.com>在消息中写道
新闻：11 ************* @ corp.supernews.com ...嗨：
我有一个Access数据库，已经运行（以某种形式）或几年内为几个不同的客户运行。现在，一个新客户端已经要求使用SQL Server后端实现它。我正在做我最好的学习SQL服务器的事情，我打算保持前端或多或少的原样，只是链接到SQL服务器后端，但是这里''一个基本问题：数据库的前端与两个后端相连。其中一个后端具有完全静态的数据，因此在全访问安装中，它与前端一起位于C驱动器上。只有第二个后端位于服务器上。
现在，我应该将两个后端转换为SQL服务器，还是将服务器上的一个转换为SQL服务器？原因，优点，缺点？
TIA。
Jan
拉里：
感谢您的快速回复。
不幸的是，客户并非直接开采;我或多或少是一个
的分包商。我不确定他们确切地知道他们为什么想要SQL Server，除了他们认为它是更好之外。办法。并且我不能支持。
争辩。他们确实遇到了一些问题，许多用户可能会在几个办公室传播。
无论如何，我只是想确定不会有将所有链接表转换为SQL Server的一些优点是
。是的，我是
计划使用ODBC链接到SQL Server后端。我的偏好
肯定会保留尽可能多的本地数据，并且在Access中，因为它可能是唯一因为它是我所知道的最好的。 />
任何人都有其他观点？
Jan
Larry Linson写道：您的新客户是想要进行转换的人，并且可能是，
正在支付您转换数据库的费用。你应该向
客户询问_they_想要什么，但是如果他们想要flakey的话，请准备好逻辑参数。
以下内容仅适用于Access MDB，使用ODBC驱动程序，用于链接到SQL服务器数据库：
相对不变的查找表通常保存在Access
应用程序的本地 - 美国的国家是一个很好的例子，公司结构（部门，部门）是另一个。我个人认为没有必要将静态数据迁移到后端，并且必须通过可能比我更慢的网络访问它。
仍然，客户可能有自己的理由（甚至是偏见）和关于什么可以合理地移动到后端的想法。
Larry Linson Microsoft Access MVP
Jan < ja*@stempelconsulting.com>在消息中写道
新闻：11 ************* @ corp.supernews.com ...
嗨：
我有一个Access数据库，几年来为几个不同的客户运行（以一种形式或另一种形式运行）。现在一个
新客户端要求它用SQL服务器后端实现。我正在尽力学习SQL服务器，并且我计划将前端或多或少地保留在前端，只需链接到SQL服务器后端，但这里'''一个基本问题：数据库有一个前端链接到两个后端。其中一个
后端具有完全静态数据，因此在全访问
安装中，它与前端一起位于C驱动器上。只有第二个后端位于服务器上。
现在，我应该将两个后端转换为SQL服务器，还是仅将服务器上的一个转换为？原因，优点，缺点？
TIA。
Jan
< blockquote> Jan写道：
拉里：
感谢您的快速回复。
不幸的是，客户并不是直接的;我或多或少是一个分包商。我不确定他们确切地知道为什么他们想要SQL
服务器，除了他们认为它是更好的办法。而且我不是一个有争议的职位。他们确实遇到了很多用户的问题，可能会分散在几个办公室。
无论如何，我只是想确定
有什么好处。所有链接表都将转换为SQL Server。是的，我打算使用ODBC链接到SQL Server后端。我的
偏好肯定是保留尽可能多的本地数据，并尽可能地访问
，只要因为它是我最了解的。
任何人都有还有其他什么意见吗？
好吧即使你想在当地保留一些桌子（我看不出任何理由）你也会经常想要
服务器上同一个表的另一个副本，如果它曾在
查询中使用过。您不希望在Access中创建使用本地表
和服务器表链接的查询。除非本地表非常小，否则这对于运行
肯定是一个低效的查询。
在我的Access FE / SQL Server BE应用程序中所有表在服务器上和
性能在标准的100 MB LAN上运行良好。
-
我不喜欢检查此邮件附带的电子邮件帐户
。发送给...
在Hunter dot com的RBrandt
Hi:
I have an Access database that''s been running (in one form or another)
for a couple of different clients for a few years. Now a new client has
requested that it be implemented with a SQL server back-end. I''m doing
my best to learn about SQL server, and I plan to leave the front-end
more or less as-is, just linking to the SQL server back end, but here''s
a basic question:
The db has a front-end linked to two back-ends. One of the back-ends has
completely static data, and so in an all-Access installation it sits on
the C drive along with the front end. Only the 2nd backend sits
on the server.
Now, should I convert both back-ends to SQL server, or just the one on
the server? Reasons, pros, cons?
TIA.
Jan
Your new client is the one who wants the conversion and, presumably, is
paying you to convert the database. You should be asking the client what
_they_ want, but be ready with logical arguments if they want something
"flakey".
The following applies only to Access MDB, using ODBC drivers, to link to an
SQL server database:
Relatively unchanging lookup tables are often kept local to an Access
application -- States in the US is a prime example, company structure
(divisions, departments) is another. I''d personally see no need to migrate
static data to the back-end and have to access it across a
possibly-slower-than-I''d-like network.
Still, the client may have their own reasons (or even prejudices) and ideas
about what can reasonably be moved to the backend.
Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
"Jan" <ja*@stempelconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:11*************@corp.supernews.com...Hi:
I have an Access database that''s been running (in one form or another)
for a couple of different clients for a few years. Now a new client has
requested that it be implemented with a SQL server back-end. I''m doing
my best to learn about SQL server, and I plan to leave the front-end
more or less as-is, just linking to the SQL server back end, but here''s
a basic question:
The db has a front-end linked to two back-ends. One of the back-ends has
completely static data, and so in an all-Access installation it sits on
the C drive along with the front end. Only the 2nd backend sits
on the server.
Now, should I convert both back-ends to SQL server, or just the one on
the server? Reasons, pros, cons?
TIA.
Jan
Hi, Larry:
Thanks for the quick reply.
Unfortunately, the client isn''t directly mine; I''m more or less a
subcontractor. I''m not sure they know exactly why they want SQL Server,
except that they think it''s the "better" way. And I''m not in a position
to argue. They do have some issues with lots of users possibly spread
out over several offices.
Anyway, I just wanted to be sure there wouldn''t be some advantage to
having all the linked tables be converted to SQL Server. And yes, I''m
planning to use the ODBC link to the SQL Server backend. My preference
is certainly to keep as much of the data local, and in Access, as
possible, if only because it''s what I know best.
Anyone have any other views?
Jan
Larry Linson wrote:Your new client is the one who wants the conversion and, presumably,
is paying you to convert the database. You should be asking the
client what _they_ want, but be ready with logical arguments if they
want something "flakey".
The following applies only to Access MDB, using ODBC drivers, to link
to an SQL server database:
Relatively unchanging lookup tables are often kept local to an Access
application -- States in the US is a prime example, company
structure (divisions, departments) is another. I''d personally see no
need to migrate static data to the back-end and have to access it
across a possibly-slower-than-I''d-like network.
Still, the client may have their own reasons (or even prejudices) and
ideas about what can reasonably be moved to the backend.
Larry Linson Microsoft Access MVP
"Jan" <ja*@stempelconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:11*************@corp.supernews.com...Hi:
I have an Access database that''s been running (in one form or
another) for a couple of different clients for a few years. Now a
new client has requested that it be implemented with a SQL server
back-end. I''m doing my best to learn about SQL server, and I plan
to leave the front-end more or less as-is, just linking to the SQL
server back end, but here''s a basic question:
The db has a front-end linked to two back-ends. One of the
back-ends has completely static data, and so in an all-Access
installation it sits on the C drive along with the front end. Only
the 2nd backend sits on the server.
Now, should I convert both back-ends to SQL server, or just the one
on the server? Reasons, pros, cons?
TIA.
Jan
Jan wrote:Hi, Larry:
Thanks for the quick reply.
Unfortunately, the client isn''t directly mine; I''m more or less a
subcontractor. I''m not sure they know exactly why they want SQL
Server, except that they think it''s the "better" way. And I''m not in
a position to argue. They do have some issues with lots of users
possibly spread out over several offices.
Anyway, I just wanted to be sure there wouldn''t be some advantage to
having all the linked tables be converted to SQL Server. And yes, I''m
planning to use the ODBC link to the SQL Server backend. My
preference is certainly to keep as much of the data local, and in
Access, as possible, if only because it''s what I know best.
Anyone have any other views?
Well even if you want to keep a few tables local (I see no reason to) you would
often want another copy of the same table on the server if it is ever used in a
query. You don''t want to create queries in Access that use both a local table
and a link to a server table. That would definitely be an inefficient query to
run unless the local table was very small).
In my Access FE/SQL Server BE apps ALL the tables are on the server and
performance is just fine on a standard 100 mb LAN.
--
I don''t check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
这篇关于转换为SQL服务器多少钱的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
