Subject:
|
Re: Frog
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:53:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
807 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:45:03 GMT, jasper@janssen.dynip.com (Jasper
Janssen) wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:00:26 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve
> Bliss) wrote:
>
> > If someone has a 10 meg spreadsheet, it's time to move it to Access, at
> > least. Maybe even move it to a real RDBMS.[1]
>
> That depends entirely on what kind of spreadsheet it is - some types
> just aren't suited to being pushed in a DB.
Rilly? I guess that's possible, I just haven't seen them. I _have_
seen too many spreadsheets trying to be applications, because the person
who put the spreadsheet together was an Excel pro, and didn't know there
were better ways to present large amounts of group-able, relation-able
data. Thousands of cells, copying data across hundreds of columns,
performing cryptic transformations of innocent data, with no apparent
organization, coherence, security, or any other redeeming quality you
can think up.
> > [1] Don't get me wrong, I like Access a lot. But sometimes you just
> > need to push all that processing off on some other machine. Like a
> > Linux box running Sybase.
>
> Well, why are you running Access at all, if you have a Linux box?
I don't, but if I had a personal need for a C/S DB, I'd seriously
consider a Linux/Sybase setup.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Frog
|
| (...) That depends entirely on what kind of spreadsheet it is - some types just aren't suited to being pushed in a DB. (...) Well, why are you running Access at all, if you have a Linux box? All kidding aside, for a nice C/S DB solution, you _could_ (...) (25 years ago, 16-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
