As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
Is there any way to configure mySql as a database server with concurrency access?
I want to develop a windows application with a open source database where multiple access at the same time. as per the research I did on the internet, Mysql is the best but just want to make sure that Mysql capabilities in the above scenario.
any help appreciated.
I believe that you're misunderstanding something, but I'm not sure what, so I'll just explain stuff a bit :-)
MySQL's single and sole purpose is what you describe. It's to store data and allow it to be accessed concurrently without too many problems.
Your question is a bit like asking "Is there any way to use a hammer to hit a nail? I have a large amount of nails here, and I need to fix some pieces of wood to each other, and I need something to slam them in. Will a hammer do?"
That said, besides MySQL, there's also nice alternatives like PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL is a bit more full-featured, and has recently been taking over MySQL in popularity. Also, "MariaDB" is, effectively, the new name of the latest MySQL version, so you might want to google for that.
Finally, since you want to develop a Windows application, maybe neither of these databases are a good choice - if every user needs to install a database server in order to use your application, installation will be difficult and error-prone (believe me - I have once, maintained the installers for a Windows application that depends on a MySQL server on the user's computer, and it's hell). You could also look into SQLite, a database (which also supports concurrent access) that you can bundle immediately with the program you're making. It's really just a library that you link into your program, so it's not a server at all. But it's a full-featured SQL database.
Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
I have a WPF application that contains two databases(local and distant).I'd connect to the distant database and execute some queries of selection (no modification) , for the local one I need to read,delete and update many informations. I have to choose between Ado.net and Linq to sql.
So, what is the best choice between them and what are the configuration parametrs needed in the distant Sql Server to accept connection from other PC?
I have to choose between Ado.net and Linq to sql.
LINQ-to-SQL is basically an ORM wrapper around ADO.NET. However, when I hear the word "distant", I would usually assume that direct ADO.NET connectivity is no longer appropriate. If the boxes are on different networks, or separated by firewalls / sub-nets / etc, then the most appropriate thing would be to expose your data via a web-service (that internally may use ADO.NET or LINQ-to-SQL, but that is entirely an implementation detail). That web-service could be exposed via WCF, ASMX, ServiceStack, manually-implemented REST, or any other kind of web-based access technology you like the look of.
Then the only question is: when running on the same network ("local" in your example)... should it continue to use the web-service (for code-reduction, etc), or should it also have a direct (ADO.NET / LINQ-to-SQL) connection option? The first would be no extra code (because the web-service already exists to support "remote" clients); the second (direct) option may in some (limited) scenarios have some performance advantages.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Basically I wanted to know which technology and languages should I use if I wanted to build a windows application. My requirements are:
my application must be able to store data entries.
a simple GUI.
I should be able to distribute my application as an .exe file
I did some research and found out that I should use C# and wrap a mysql db in my application. Is this the correct way or is there any other and better method than this?
I am a newbie developer and have worked only with java, so please bare if its a silly question.
Aside from learning C#, as you know Java already, you can also develop a Java app and use a wrapper tool like launch4j and jsmooth to distribute it on Windows and have it configured to automatically install JRE if there's none.
There will always be arguments over the 'correct way' and whether one method is 'better' than another. Threre are also a couple of 'it depends' aspects to your question.
Having said that, yes, C# is a well recognised technology for developing windows applications, and mysql will provide a means to add database abilities to the application, so you are well on the way. (Trust your research :).
Do you intend to develop a multi user application that takes data from different sources? For this, you will need to think about deploying the database separately to the application and network/internet access etc etc. Also, if this is the case, you may want to think about a more robust database solution like sql server. There are a number of versions of this database (see here for some info: http://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2012/sql-server-2012-editions-142261).
If your application is going to be standalone, then deploying an instance of mysql within the application will work, but you may want to consider something with a smaller footprint (sql server compact, or sql lite maybe).
hth
for a newbie for such a nice and clear question. Yes you can use C# with windows form to build up your app. But You cannot pack you db inside an exe. It must be an external resource. Better go for C# with SQL Server as Sql Server is its native and has far better support than any database available. Also you have express edition of the same to use upto 10GB and most important its free....
As per my concern you can go with c# application. But nobody can tell whether it is simple to you or not. It depends on how you understand the concepts and syntax of the language. I recommend you to go with C# and MS SQL Sever Express Edition.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I'm working on a system (.NET website) that uses class libraries to manipulate data located on a MS SQL server. Lately, I've been wondering about ditching those classes and doing the data manipulation using WCF. That way I could consume the services in Android, Java, etc...
Well, some classes return a large amount of data, say a 125x10000 datatable... and I'm worried that WCF will not be able to handle that... or maybe that the system's performance will suffer too much.
What do you guys think?
Is WCF ok to to use for retrieving/updating large amounts of data on a multi-user system?
If not, what are some other options?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to achieve, but it sounds like what you're suggesting is moving the database load to the application side - pulling entire data tables to the application in order to run your would-be DB operation.That's kind of what the SQL server is designed for.
By doing so, you're putting all of the load onto your application server and underutilizing the DB area of concern. Write some code to handle locking and then let the database do it's job. You'll end up writing more procs, but that's normal, and better in the long run as you can edit them on the back end without having to recompile app code. IMO do all of your database operations in your stored procedure and return the smaller result sets through WCF.
I mean... are you really planning on piping that much info over a WCF service onto cellphone?!
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Would it be a good choice for use within a WCF service written in C#? I'm currently using FirebirdSql, but that's giving me way too many problems. Documentation and support is also horrible.
edit: Sorry, I should have been more specific when asking the question. What I meant was whether or not SQLite is a good choice for an embedded database within C#. MS SQL is out of the question for this one.
SQLite is a great platform for any language, however there are small concerns I've had with it under .NET.
It is natively compiled. This breaks .NET's AnyCPU Implementations of .NET (i.e. you have to explicitly distribute a 32bit & 64bit version of your app, and have some hand-written rules in your .csproj (MSBUILD) file to select the different dependencies based on what you select.
It has some sticky threading issues. You're going to run into trouble if you're trying to use the same DB from multiple places (multiple instances of your app) etc. It's doable, but it basically uses a simplistic form of database/table locking to achieve this, which could be a major concern based on your program.
All In all i really like SQLite, but if I could find one that didn't require a redistributable (*cough*SQL Express*cough*), I would use another embedded DBMS for .NET Apps. To date I havent found one aside from Raven DB but that's a document DB.
Edit: Note, Raven DB Is also only free for open-source applications. It's not suitable for proprietary applications unless you're willing to shell out for a licence, so when looking into it please be sure to factor it into your budget.
SQL Express always works well
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
I mainly develop Java EE webapps so I don't have any experiences with desktop application at all. Now a friend of mine needed a little tool for daily business which I've build with Seam and a MySQL db in the background. In case of my experience this was done really fast.
Now I want to go further and produce a real small desktop app for him. I've looked at various options and developing a gtk# application with Mono seems my way to go for this little project. The application should be small and fast so I was thinking if a whole MySQL server is needed for my solution here.
What options I could evaluate instead of a database server which has to run as a service on the workingmachine? Storing data as XML?
To clarify the application has now 6 entites (Products, ProductTypes, Colors, Sizes, Orders, Production). On daily basis orders and production are added to a ProductType, very simple stuff.
XML would work for small sets up data, but if you are going to have larger sets I would recommend something like sqlite.
http://www.sqlite.org/
I have looked at various options and I tend to like SQLite
for client applications on .NET. It is a file based solution that does not require a database server to be installed on the machine, much like using an Access database but better.
Try SQLite
Can be other DB will interest, for example, Db4o or SQL CE 4.