Access 2010 vs SQL Server

[mwolfod]

In preparing for conversion of our Access 2003 database to Access 2010, I noticed that 2010 includes an option to convert to SQL Server.



In a certain FORM on our database we scan images directly into Access. While convenient, this is of course expanding the size of the database rather rapidly. I understand that SQL Server does not have the weird size limitation of Access.

Would it then be worth converting to SQL Server for this reason alone? Or for other reasons as well? We LINK to numerous images in all other areas of the database, and could certainly change this particular FORM to LINK as well, but I thought the SQL Server option would be worth asking about. I know nothing about SQL Server, but imagine it is quite different than Access. I am not an Access pro, either.

Thanks in advance for the informed replies.

[NTC]

Access and SQLserver are products with logical differences, oriented toward their target markets. to say that Access has a 'wierd size limitation' is sort of like saying a pickup truck has a wierd size limitation. It is what it is. Using the truck analogy Access is a pickup truck while SQLserver is an 18 wheeler.

SQLserver is a product set, not a single product - and roughly involves about 2-4 different certifications involving design & maintenance. It certification generally involves 1-2 weeks training. It is a big commitment, because it has the ability to be the basis for running large corporations. There is a SQLserver Express, free product that is primarily targeted at the free MySQL and development community that embeds dbs into products but also can serve as a stepping stone for the need of a more advanced back end of Access. However in order to take advantage of the sqlserver architecture one must still learn the technology - as simply moving tables from an Access BE to sqlexpress BE does not make any improvement unto itself.

Putting scanned images into the db itself is not recommended. One should leave them outside the db and use the Attachment or hyperlink field type to connect to them.

Hope this helps.

[mwolfod]

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, that is all pretty much what I had thought was the case, but it is beneficial to get the opinion of the more knowledgeable and experienced. Thanks.

While the "weird" adjective was mine, I have repeatedly heard complaints over the years from Access pros about the 2GB DB size limitation.

[pkstormy]

In preparing for conversion of our Access 2003 database to Access 2010, I noticed that 2010 includes an option to convert to SQL Server.

In a certain FORM on our database we scan images directly into Access. While convenient, this is of course expanding the size of the database rather rapidly. I understand that SQL Server does not have the weird size limitation of Access.

Would it then be worth converting to SQL Server for this reason alone? Or for other reasons as well? We LINK to numerous images in all other areas of the database, and could certainly change this particular FORM to LINK as well, but I thought the SQL Server option would be worth asking about. I know nothing about SQL Server, but imagine it is quite different than Access. I am not an Access pro, either.

Thanks in advance for the informed replies.

"Would it then be worth converting to SQL Server for this reason alone? Or for other reasons as well? We LINK to numerous images in all other areas of the database, and could certainly change this particular FORM to LINK as well, but I thought the SQL Server option would be worth asking about. I know nothing about SQL Server, but imagine it is quite different than Access. I am not an Access pro, either."

YES - YES - YES. The time you invest in learning SQL Server will be invaluable. You will never look back and wonder why you took the time to learn it.