Microsoft Access 2000 databases do not use a server to perform the
transactions. This limits security and flexibility. PostgreSQL and MySQL
are both rely on a database server (similar to that of Microsoft SQL
server). If the database is going to grow to over 50 or 100 MB I would not
use Access. If your database is very simple and will not house millions of
records than Access databases are probably adequite. Securing an Access
database may actually be easier because their is no "server", all that
needs to be secured is access to the database file. Securing PostgreSQL
and MySQL is a little bit more involved because the server application
needs to be secured which can usually be done by using a good firewall and
strict database access controll lists.

Aharon Weidner
 

On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, zero wrote:

>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all,
> I'm looking for some good reasons for not using Access 2000. Well,
> I don't like it very much but what is the difference between access and
> some other databases like postgreSQL or mysql? Are they more flexible, more
> secure? Any help is welcome. The question is, is it better to use access on
> a secure web application or some other database?
>
> Gretz
>
>
> www.citfi.org
> www.podergeek.com
> **********************************
> "The further backward you look, the further forward you can see" Winston
> Churchill
> "Access is GOD..."
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBPYYweQ0R8jZM93x8EQJpeACgz3WwAQofnBs5i/iEnhdDG2aSHUUAnA0u
> OZpKbSHk3oUoQJ2LG4pi9pde
> =l7QR
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]