Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    303
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    MS Access 2003 & SQL (2003)

    We are in the process of building an application using MS Outlook as the frontend of the form. Can we in the form tell it to write to an Access database but view a Link realy update the SQL database? Let's see.... When we tell the form to write to Access we see a link that leads to the SQL database. Do we still have to build the tables in Access or only in SQL?

    Not sure if I got the wording right.

  2. #2
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    16,775
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: MS Access 2003 & SQL (2003)

    I'm not sure what you're asking. If you have an Access mdb with table links to SQL Server, then when you write to those linked tables in Access, you're actually writing to SQL Server. Is that what you wanted to know?
    Charlotte

  3. #3
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    303
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: MS Access 2003 & SQL (2003)

    Yes, but do I have to create the tables in both Access and SQL?

  4. #4
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    16,775
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: MS Access 2003 & SQL (2003)

    If the Outlook form is writing to the Access database, you need linked tables in Access. You don't create the tables there, you link to the tables in SQL Server, which is where the tables actually exist.
    Charlotte

  5. #5
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    303
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: MS Access 2003 & SQL (2003)

    Thank you. That is what I needed to know

  6. #6
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    303
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: MS Access 2003 & SQL (2003)

    I guess the real question is even though the tables actually exist in Sequel Server, would you eliminate the need to make the definitions in Access totally? And with this being the case, would the time spent in defining the tables in Sequel be less than in Access?

    Is there someplace that I can check that will show me how the Access table links would look like?

  7. #7
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    16,775
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: MS Access 2003 & SQL (2003)

    Linked tables in Access have a link indicator. With SQL Server tables, the link indicator is an arrow and a world icon. You create and modify the table structure wherever it is local, in this case in SQL Server. The table link in Access is merely a pointer to the SQL Server table. Have you never worked with linked tables?

    I don't understand the question about time spent defining the tables. If you're going to use SQL Server, you have to define the tables in SQL Server. There isn't any particular difference in time between designing tables in one environment or the other, but there is a significant difference in the control you have over behavior in SQL Server tables. Or are you talking about designing the tables in Access and then upsizing the database to SQL?

    Perhaps if you explain the entire situation and what you're trying to decide, you'll get an answer that will be more helpful.
    Charlotte

  8. #8
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    303
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: MS Access 2003 & SQL (2003)

    Right now we are using forms that were created in MS Outlook 98 using MS Access 97 for the database. We have been tasked with the project of updating our application. We have been given the following options to do this:

    1. MS Outlook 2003 to MS Access 2003
    2. MS Outlook 2003 to SQL (Here is where someone said we have to create a MS Access db with links to SQL) Never seen or done this before.
    3. VB 6 or VB.Net to MS Access 2003 or SQL
    4. Dreamweaver/Coldfussion frontend to either MS Access 2003 or SQL

    We only have experience using MS Outlook and MS Access. Two of our people have had 1 class using VB6 a while back. We need to come up with a Project plan for each option and give an extimate of how long it would take.

  9. #9
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    16,775
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: MS Access 2003 & SQL (2003)

    Good grief! Any approach that you are unfamiliar with with take at least 4 times longer than one you are familiar with, and that's being conservative. SQL Server is NOT the same as working with Access, it requires an administrator who understands at least the basics. You could probably write directly to SQL Server without the Access layer, but it would require significant coding. VB.Net is a wonderful environment and I love developing in it, but the learning curve is steep even if you are accustomed to writing classes and using ADO. Dreamweaver/Cold Fusion is for web-based, or at least browser-based apps. Only option 1 is within your grasp unless your bosses are willing to devote a year or so to training before choosing one of the others.
    Charlotte

  10. #10
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    303
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: MS Access 2003 & SQL (2003)

    Yes, right now they are leaning to option 1 but I didn't give you all the facts.

    1. We have Exchange Server 5.5 - This might be upgraded to 2003. When? We have not idea.
    2. The Exchange Server might be relocated from our site in Tx. to Atlanta Ga. - When? No idea.
    3. Any option that is chosen - No money for training or books. - And this is the best - it must be done in less the 3 months.

  11. #11
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    16,775
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: MS Access 2003 & SQL (2003)

    Then you absolutely have no choice but option 1. You can't even learn the other tools in 3 months, let alone build a system in them. Did they bother to budget for SQL Server? It's cheaper than Oracle, but "cheap" is relative.
    Charlotte

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •