Re: Single file RDBMS w/o system install

I have had luck with MySQL. It fails the "single file" requirement, but it is still fairly simple to control, all files in a given database are stored in the /data directory in it's own subdirectory So it's easy to move and manage the multiple files. The Mysql project i'm working on is for a Linux Server, and I'm developing it on a Windows NT box running Apache. Besides some minor changes in my Perl scripts, it runs correctly on both platforms. MySQL has a very good web based gui called phpMyAdmin that also works on Win32 and UNIX.
As for the specific requirements you mention the only product that behaves that way that I can think of is MS Access, but it's not really a multiuser solution. Any particular reason for the single file requirement?

Comment on Re: Single file RDBMS w/o system install

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re (2): Single file RDBMS w/o system install by dmmiller2k (Chaplain) on Nov 13, 2001 at 19:19 UTC
I've been struggling with the same decision for one of my projects: text-based database vs. MySQL (or PostIngres or even other more costly RDBMS'es). I've been asked to take over for another consultant who has recently become consumed by the arrangements for his daughter's Bat Mitzvah. He chose the module `JSprite`, which is a standalone version of `DBD::Sprite`, for better or worse. This works fairly well, with each "table" being stored in its own (CSV) file, the directory containing these being nicely contained in one place. My own concern is less about speed (which cannot begin to compete with an RDBMS) than about mutli-user access (the client claims not to expect more than 10-12 users at any given time). `JSprite` uses `flock()` to manage contention, which, although arguably adequate for 10-12 users, is certainly insufficient for ten times that many. Still agonizing over whether to force the issue, I'm proceeding with development using the `JSprite` configuration. One nice thing about the SQL syntax it supports is that it is vaguely Oracle-like in form. Once the system is running, I can replace the underlying database (if necessary) with a minimum of pain. Not sure how helpful this was to you... dmm	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re (2): Single file RDBMS w/o system install
by dmmiller2k (Chaplain) on Nov 13, 2001 at 19:19 UTC

I've been struggling with the same decision for one of my projects: text-based database vs. MySQL (or PostIngres or even other more costly RDBMS'es). I've been asked to take over for another consultant who has recently become consumed by the arrangements for his daughter's Bat Mitzvah.

He chose the module JSprite, which is a standalone version of DBD::Sprite, for better or worse. This works fairly well, with each "table" being stored in its own (CSV) file, the directory containing these being nicely contained in one place.

My own concern is less about speed (which cannot begin to compete with an RDBMS) than about mutli-user access (the client claims not to expect more than 10-12 users at any given time).

JSprite uses flock() to manage contention, which, although arguably adequate for 10-12 users, is certainly insufficient for ten times that many.

Still agonizing over whether to force the issue, I'm proceeding with development using the JSprite configuration. One nice thing about the SQL syntax it supports is that it is vaguely Oracle-like in form. Once the system is running, I can replace the underlying database (if necessary) with a minimum of pain.

Not sure how helpful this was to you...

dmm

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]