Content Database why would I use SQL Server instead of Access

[alan_rackham]

I would like to know why AutoCad Electrical offer's the option of using either Microsoft Access or SQL Server to store the catalog and footprint databases.

This question has been raised as we are using AutoCAD Electrical between multiple users and when more that one person edits the catalog (currently in access) we have problems with the database ranging from loss of data to corrupt database.  Is it possible to use Access in a multi-user environment?

Any help would be appreciated.

[Anonymous]

Please check the link below: 

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/autocad-electrical-forum/catalog-database-for-multiple-people-edit/m-... 

[alan_rackham]

Ramesh

Thanks,  I did see this link.  What I was hoping for is that someone could definitively say that access is not suitable for multiple users when used with AutoCAD Electrical.  According to what I have read Microsoft Access is more than capable of allowing multi-user control.

Thanks,

Alan

[rhesusminus]

Yes, Microsoft Access itself is capable of multiple users. It all comes down to how you implement it in your code. And it is what it is in AcadE.
I haven't tested how it locks the database with SQL when editing a table, and I haven't started using the SQL thingy much, as it's only the catalog and footprint database that's supported. Not the PLC database or any of the other small databases needed in AcadE.

[JeffatPrimex]

I can definitively say I would Not use MS Access in a multi user environment. To put it in layman's terms SQL = Cadillac, MS Access = Pinto wagon. The greatest advantages of using SQL are centralize control, security and backups. We use MS Access as a front end to a back end SQL database and this works very well. As Trond said it really depends on how well it's coded. I recall when I started using AutoCAD Electrical and MS Access back in the Toolbox WD days that I created an Instrument Table "IN" and broke everything. Doing some research I let Nate know he had better put [IN] brackets around all Table names in his code. Point being I think is was a learning curve during the development process and never done by a database professional otherwise it would have been normalized with many relationships IMO. I had hoped that when the SQL version came out that this would have been taken care of but it was not. Some or most of the tables didn't have any key'd and seeded fields and it took a while to get it to work. I have to say I think we have it working well now and hope you will too.

Best regards,

Jeff  

[rhesusminus]

Cadillac:

Pinto:

Can't see your point really 😉 

[jseefdrumr]

I'd rather have that Pinto, lol

That motor would go great in my boat...