 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / March 2005Difference favoring 4D or FileMaker?
Are there differences which favor 4D or FileMaker as a database? I'm inheriting a DB from a Windows user who set it up in Access. I'm told it's relational, but I have no clue whether Access really is relational. On the other hand, I've used MySQL databases from within PHP scripts. Is there a good graphical interface to MySQL for the Mac that would make importing the DB and using it within MySQL bearable? Since I don't know either 4D or FM, that's an option. On the other other hand, is there a Mac DB that's as dumb as Access? :-> I'd like not to spend big bucks on this.  SignaturePhil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily. > Are there differences which favor 4D or FileMaker as a database? I'm > inheriting a DB from a Windows user who set it up in Access. I'm told it's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > On the other other hand, is there a Mac DB that's as dumb as Access? :-> > I'd like not to spend big bucks on this. No port from Access is going to be easy. Whether you go with some frontend to MySQL (there are a lot of them listed at VersionTracker), use FileMaker, or employ 4D, you're going to have to put a lot of work into the port. With that in mind, it really depends upon what features you need/desire. I've always found forms and report creation to be a royal pain in the butt using 4D and almost trivial with FMP; however, 4D is more easily programmed with its Pascalish language than FMP, which relies on a (rather extensive) scripting language, AppleScript, and Calculation fields. Both offer trial versions...check them out. SignatureSpenser > more easily programmed with its Pascalish language than FMP, which > relies on a (rather extensive) scripting language, AppleScript, and > Calculation fields. I'm mildly comfortable in AppleScript not having looked at Pascal since back in the 80s some time (remember when Phillippe Kahn was selling Turbo Pascal?), so that's a plus for FM. SignaturePhil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily. > Are there differences which favor 4D or FileMaker as a database? I'm > inheriting a DB from a Windows user who set it up in Access. I'm told it's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > On the other other hand, is there a Mac DB that's as dumb as Access? :-> > I'd like not to spend big bucks on this. I know nothing about Access but I can't imagine that importing it into any Mac relational DB is going to be anything but a big PITA. Filemaker is only marginally relational (personally I would never use it for anything more than a CD collection) and for home/simple use only IMO. I have used 4D and I doubt you could do much better for a built-for-Mac DB; however, it has a very steep learning curve and I would not recommend it unless you have extremely sophisticated needs. The few people I know who went the way of 4D ended up spending a lot in training and consulting fees to really nail down their databases. I've been using Helix RADE for years (my personal preference for legal & research DBs because of its text flexibility), and though it is close, it is still not converted to OS X. Agh. Runs great in Classic though. It does have a very loyal, enduring following but some people don't care for its unique object language. > > Are there differences which favor 4D or FileMaker as a database? I'm > > inheriting a DB from a Windows user who set it up in Access. I'm told it's [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is only marginally relational (personally I would never use it for > anything more than a CD collection) and for home/simple use only IMO. You must be talking about an older version of FileMaker then. Filemaker 7 is a *very* comprehensive relational DB. I'm using it for a couple different small businesses. SignatureRodger > You must be talking about an older version of FileMaker then. Filemaker > 7 is a *very* comprehensive relational DB. I'm using it for a couple > different small businesses. Rodger, do you know if FM can import from Access and not lose any relations or whatever? SignaturePhil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily. > > You must be talking about an older version of FileMaker then. Filemaker > > 7 is a *very* comprehensive relational DB. I'm using it for a couple > > different small businesses. Not comprehensive enough. > Rodger, do you know if FM can import from Access and not lose any relations > or whatever? Just import the tables, including primary and foreign keys. You will then have to set up the relations between the tables "manually" which is a little tricky as FileMaker 7 doesn't use the normal way of doing it. For those of us who are used to ER-diagrams from relational database theory. For a start, go into File->Define->Define Database->Relationships. You make relationships from the master table to the detail table, but you should double-click on the relation in order to set the options correctly. Master should have the option "Allow creation of records in this table via this relationship" and Detail furthermore the option "Delete related records in this table when a record is deleted in the other table" set. Some of the problems with relations between tables {in relation theory: relations, just to confuse the layman} in FileMaker 7 is the result of FM's support of many-to-many relations;-(. SignaturePer Erik Rønne > You must be talking about an older version of FileMaker then. Filemaker > 7 is a *very* comprehensive relational DB. I'm using it for a couple > different small businesses. No, I'm talking about Filemaker. It has improved and is great for small business accounting and the like but still cannot be reliably used for something like legal research & case management, medical records systems, or client/patient intake management systems. For situations in which you are manipulating vast amounts of data, where you have databases within databases so to speak, graphical data management, management of documents external to the database (especially on LANs), batch posting, globals, and lots of other higher level functions, you need something of the caliber of 4D or Helix. > No, I'm talking about Filemaker. It has improved and is great for > small business accounting and the like Without transaction support? SignaturePer Erik Rønne > > No, I'm talking about Filemaker. It has improved and is great for > > small business accounting and the like > > Without transaction support? Well like I said, I personally think it sucks. But for elementary small business usage, it's great for people who don't know anything about building databases. > > > No, I'm talking about Filemaker. It has improved and is great for > > > small business accounting and the like [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > business usage, it's great for people who don't know anything about > building databases. Personally, I use FM7 for my small Contact base, originally developed for dBase II on a cp/m-80 computer, and for a few other small databases. I would never, ever, use it for accounting purposes. Professionally, I'm most used to Oracle development. SignaturePer Erik Rønne, MSc Frederikssundsvej 308B, 3. tv. DK-2700 Brønshøj, Denmark Telephone + fax +45 38 89 00 16, mobile +45 28 23 09 92 > Are there differences which favor 4D or FileMaker as a database? I'm > inheriting a DB from a Windows user who set it up in Access. I'm told it's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > On the other other hand, is there a Mac DB that's as dumb as Access? :-> > I'd like not to spend big bucks on this. I use 4D every day - you give no specifics on what you are trying to get out of the system (what are you doing?) if you are tracking email addresses - word is enough if you are trying to convert a custom accounting app for your larger business 4D is probably your best bet. as far as FMP v 4D the differences are fairly straight forward - 4D is a database engine with an included programing language FMP - is a scripted database 4D is far more flexible, and far more powerful. This power and flexibility has a cost - learning curve. one of the most powerful features is 4D is multi-threaded it is also compilable, and client server and updates are so simple - shut down 4D, replace 'structure' file, restart 4D > > Are there differences which favor 4D or FileMaker as a database? I'm > > inheriting a DB from a Windows user who set it up in Access. I'm told it's > > relational, but I have no clue whether Access really is relational. >SNIP< > you give no specifics on what you are trying to get out of the system > (what are you doing?) Yeah, that makes it tough to give me any kind of an answer, I know. My problem is, I'm getting handed a DB from an Access user, and I won't have it till tomorrow night, and I won't look at it till Friday. I have no clue what the specifics are, although I know it is a database of club members. I have seen a variety of reports generated by the DB, but I have no clue whether any of it is really relational or just straight data with different sorting employed to pull out more or less data for the various reports. > if you are tracking email addresses - word is enough Not having Word, I use BBEdit to track email addresses, but that's another story. :-> >SNIP< > as far as FMP v 4D > the differences are fairly straight forward - > 4D is a database engine with an included programing language > FMP - is a scripted database Which I'm sure is meaningful to someone who has used a DB. I equate your description of 4D with my understanding of MySQL. As for FileMaker being a scripted database, I'm sorry to say I can't figure that out. SignaturePhil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily. >>>Are there differences which favor 4D or FileMaker as a database? I'm >>>inheriting a DB from a Windows user who set it up in Access. I'm told it's [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > description of 4D with my understanding of MySQL. As for FileMaker being a > scripted database, I'm sorry to say I can't figure that out. this means that every bit of code you need to write *HAS* to be attached to something; a button, a field etc. 4D allows the creation of 'project methods' (their terminology) that is "free floating" code [standard procedures/functions] that can be called from anywhere else in the program. FMP - if you want to, say add 2 + 2, and you need to do this in 8 places you have to write the code in 8 places. 4D (same thing) - you write the code once. then make calls to the procedure/method from the 8 places. this all means [in 4D] that if your need to change the code from 2 + 2 to X + Y you change the code once, in one place and it is corrected (changed) everywhere. in FMP you have to find (or remember) every place you put the code 2 + 2, then go change it. > Are there differences which favor 4D or FileMaker as a database? I'm > inheriting a DB from a Windows user who set it up in Access. I'm told it's > relational, but I have no clue whether Access really is relational. It isn't. > On the other hand, I've used MySQL databases from within PHP scripts. Is > there a good graphical interface to MySQL for the Mac that would make [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > On the other other hand, is there a Mac DB that's as dumb as Access? :-> > I'd like not to spend big bucks on this. You can use both MySQl and {the much better} PostgreSQL on your Mac with MacOS X. I do, however, not have anye experience with proper forms with them. But you should remember that MacOS X is UNIX. Full Java and full PHP support. From a developer's point of view, FileMaker is the easiest database to handle. But if you have to use more advanced features, you'll have to turn to 4th Dimension. If what you want is a simple Contact database with four tables {an entry table with names and the like, a number table with telephone numbers and e-mail addresses etc, an address table with addresses and zip codes, and a post table with zip codes and zip districts - as I have mad for myself}, FileMaker Pro is fully sufficient, and 4th Dimension would be overkill. If, on the other hand, you want to create a kind of accounting system, you will have to turn to 4th Dimension. FileMaker doesn't support transactions, 4th Dimension does. From a user's point of view, it really doesn't matter. After all, it's the developer's job to make a good interface. Both 4th Dimension and FileMaker Pro are good database systems, though not free like the two former. Import-export? No problems. Just export the tables in tab-separated files, and remember to convert characters other than 7-bit ascii to MacRoman. BTW, Oracle has just released an Enterprise version for MacOS X. http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/htdocs/devlic.html?http://otn. oracle.com/software/products/database/oracle10g/htdocs/macsoft.html SignaturePer Erik Rønne On 2005-02-17 02:20:11 -0500, spam@husumtoften.invalid (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?=) said: >> Are there differences which favor 4D or FileMaker as a database? I'm >> inheriting a DB from a Windows user who set it up in Access. I'm told it's [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/htdocs/devlic.html?http://otn. > oracle.com/software/products/database/oracle10g/htdocs/macsoft.html Also note that Sybase has ASE on the mac. I use both Oracle and Sybase, and both can handle anything. Not easy and not nice pretty front end like MSAccess. SignatureJ "If there is anything I can do for you or more to the point to you, let me know." > Also note that Sybase has ASE on the mac. I use both Oracle and > Sybase, and both can handle anything. Not easy and not nice pretty > front end like MSAccess. I found it: http://download.sybase.com/eval/MacOSX/Sybase_ASE_1251_ESD2.dmg - and will try it. BTW, I don't think Acces has a "nice pretty front end". SignaturePer Erik Rønne > On 2005-02-17 02:20:11 -0500, spam@husumtoften.invalid > (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?=) said: snip > > If, on the other hand, you want to create a kind of accounting system, > > you will have to turn to 4th Dimension. FileMaker doesn't support > > transactions, 4th Dimension does. Huh? That's funny. . . I could swear I have a full double-entry accounting system with transactions, accounts and journal entries all set up and running in Filemaker. I must be suffering from some kind of illusion. Bill snip SignatureTo send e-mail, remove .invalid > > > If, on the other hand, you want to create a kind of accounting system, > > > you will have to turn to 4th Dimension. FileMaker doesn't support [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > set up and running in Filemaker. I must be suffering from some kind of > illusion. For databases, "transaction" has a specific meaning that really has nothing at all to do with a financial transaction such as you might have in an accounting system. SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X. Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more. See http://www.atomicbird.com/ > > On 2005-02-17 02:20:11 -0500, spam@husumtoften.invalid > > (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?=) said: > > > If, on the other hand, you want to create a kind of accounting system, > > > you will have to turn to 4th Dimension. FileMaker doesn't support > > > transactions, 4th Dimension does. > Huh? That's funny. . . I could swear I have a full double-entry > accounting system with transactions, accounts and journal entries all > set up and running in Filemaker. I must be suffering from some kind of > illusion. Are you saying that transactions are a built-in feature in FileMaker Pro? Or just that someone has built a FM-based system with something called transactions? Take a simple three-way transaction. You have sold something which means that you have to debit a debitor's account. Furthermore you will have to credit two accounts: a receipts account and a VAT account. What will happen if the system breaks down in the middle of the transaction. Remember, the total debits should always be the same as the total credits. Consequently, in database contexts a transaction is either fully performed - or not performed at all. It is an /atomic/ action. SignaturePer Erik Rønne > > > On 2005-02-17 02:20:11 -0500, spam@husumtoften.invalid > > > (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?=) said: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > credits. Consequently, in database contexts a transaction is either > fully performed - or not performed at all. It is an /atomic/ action. I built a double-entry bookkeeping system in Filemaker Pro. The basic bookkeeping system has three related files that I named Accounts, Transactions and Journal. The Accounts are the various asset, liability, expense and income accounts. Journal stores a debit or credit for each account. Transaction stores the date and other particulars of the transaction. Transactions and Journal records are related by transaction ID. Journal records and accounts are related by Account ID. A portal in the transaction layout enables creation of related journal records showing the appropriate account and credit or debit for each. You can create any number of journal records in one transaction, so you can allocate different amounts as debits or credits to any number of different accounts. The system is set up to require that for any transaction, the sum of debits equals the sum of credits, as in standard bookkeeping practice. The system also has various other layouts for reconciling accounts with bank statements, producing a balance sheet and income statement, etc. None of this is at all outside the standard capabilities of a Filemaker database. I built this bookkeeping system myself, first in FileMaker 4, and then migrated to Filemaker Pro 7. Much more complex business management systems can be built in FileMaker Pro. A different poster said something to the effect that "transaction" has a specific meaning for databases. Fine. The OP to whom I was responding in my earlier message (quoted above) said that you can't build an accounting system in FileMaker Pro, which is simply not true. Bill SignatureTo send e-mail, remove .invalid > > > > On 2005-02-17 02:20:11 -0500, spam@husumtoften.invalid > > > > (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?=) said: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > my earlier message (quoted above) said that you can't build an > accounting system in FileMaker Pro, which is simply not true. Then, let me quote from the 4th Dimension manual: Using Transactions Transactions are a series of related data modifications made to a database within a process. A transaction is not saved to a database permanently until the transaction is validated. If a transaction is not completed, either because it is canceled or because of some outside event, the modifications are not saved. During a transaction, all changes made to the database data within a process are stored locally in a temporary buffer. If the transaction is accepted with VALIDATE TRANSACTION, the changes are saved permanently. If the transaction is canceled with CANCEL TRANSACTION, the changes are not saved. ... === START TRANSACTION Parameter Type Description This command does not require any parameters Description START TRANSACTION starts a transaction in the current process. All changes to the database are stored temporarily until the transaction is accepted (validated) or canceled. If you have several global processes, you can have several transactions. You cannot, however, nest transactions. If you start a transaction inside another transaction, 4th Dimension ignores the second transaction. See Also CANCEL TRANSACTION, In transaction, Using Transactions, VALIDATE TRANSACTION. === VALIDATE TRANSACTION Parameter Type Description This command does not require any parameters Description VALIDATE TRANSACTION accepts the transaction in the current process that was started with START TRANSACTION. VALIDATE TRANSACTION saves the changes to the database that occurred during the transaction. See Also CANCEL TRANSACTION, In transaction, START TRANSACTION, Using Transactions. === CANCEL TRANSACTION Parameter Type Description This command does not require any parameters Description CANCEL TRANSACTION cancels the transaction in the current process that was started with START TRANSACTION. CANCEL TRANSACTION leaves the database unchanged by canceling the operations executed during the transaction. See Also In transaction, START TRANSACTION, Using Transactions, VALIDATE TRANSACTION. === In transaction Boolean Parameter Type Description This command does not require any parameters Function result Boolean Returns TRUE if current process is in transaction Description The command In transaction returns TRUE if the current process is in a transaction, otherwise it returns FALSE. Example If you perform a multi-record operation (adding, modifying, or deleting records), you may encounter locked records. In this case, if you have to maintain data integrity, you must be in transaction so you can "roll-back" the whole operation and leave the database untouched. If you perform the operation from within a trigger or from a subroutine (that can be called while in transaction or not), you can use In transaction to check whether or not the current process method or the caller method started a transaction. If a transaction was not started, you do not even start the operation, because you already know that you will not be able to roll it back if it fails. See Also CANCEL TRANSACTION, START TRANSACTION, Triggers, VALIDATE TRANSACTION. === Do you claim that FileMaker Pro 7 has similar capabilities? SignaturePer Erik Rønne In comp.sys.mac.apps - article <bbcollins-DC1EFC.17520818022005 @news1.east.earthlink.net>, on Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:52:08 GMT, B Collins says... > A different poster said something to the effect that "transaction" has a > specific meaning for databases. Fine. The OP to whom I was responding in > my earlier message (quoted above) said that you can't build an > accounting system in FileMaker Pro, which is simply not true. > > Bill You can indeed build an accounting system in virtually any database/language regardless of whether low level transaction control is provided by the database/language. If on the other hand, you want a trustworthy accounting system and the database/language does not provide transaction controls, you must provide and promote database auditing mechanisms. Something along the lines of storing the balances of each transaction participant table within the transaction record itself and an auditing program should be run from time to time to verify each table received the effect of the transactions relative to them. It's not difficult to do, I've done it, but to have a "trustworthy" system, you need database level transaction control and/or accounting program provided auditing mechanisms to insure that a "transaction" didn't fail in the middle. An example of program logic would be to include a field for example called "InTransaction", and if you want to make life easier, include a field "TransactionID". 1) Before beginning an accounting transaction, set the "InTransaction" field in all participant table records and (FLUSH/SYNC) initiate whatever is available to insure those records are written to disk. 2) Write your transaction table record and set the transaction ID in all the participant table records, FLUSH/SYNC all that to disk. 3) After the above sequence, clear the InTransaction and TransactionID fields from each respective transaction participant table and FLUSH/SYNC. 4) A mechanism should be put into place to examine the InTransaction and TransactionID fields upon every read, reporting the existence of this condition to the user as an error. This will help bring a failed traction to light as early as possible to prevent further mis calculations. A monthly data audit should be performed to inspect all records of transaction participant tables looking for the status of the "transaction" fields and reporting the existence of any. Since you're examining all records, it's a good time to make sure things crossfoot. Given the current state of reliability of OSX or Win??, using a database engine providing transaction control or manually programming the equivalent into your application is prudent and professional. If you're monitoring other's money via your program or distributing your program, you have a fiduciary responsibility to provide one or the other of database provided transaction controls or a programmatic equivalent. > In comp.sys.mac.apps - article <bbcollins-DC1EFC.17520818022005 > @news1.east.earthlink.net>, on Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:52:08 GMT, B [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > the other of database provided transaction controls or a programmatic > equivalent. Thank you. You have added to my education about databases. I think I have made my FileMaker accounting system in such a way that it is easy to verify that a transaction is correct on entry, and easy to audit after the fact. This is without having the facilities for database transaction control that you describe. When I create a bookkeeping transaction (which, as you point out, is not the same as a database transaction), the layout shows the fields for the transaction (date, description, etc) and a portal to the related Journal table. I create the Journal records right in the portal. Each journal record shows the account and the debit or credit amount posted. Thus I see the journal records directly as they are created. Below the portal are fields that display the sums of the debits and credits from the related Journal records, and a field that displays a warning if the sum of the debits does not equal the sum of the credits. Each of my transaction records is automatically assigned a transaction ID when it is created. This is a serial number, and is required by field validation to be unique. The Journal records created within that transaction are automatically assigned that transaction ID, as well as their own unique serial number ID. The journal records are related to the transaction by the Transaction ID. A second level of audit is provided in a layout for each account. That layout shows fields that describe the account (name, type, etc), and a portal that shows the journal records related to that account. The journal fields displayed include date & description (taken from the related Transaction record), Debit and Credit fields, and fields for marking reconciliation with a bank statement, credit card statement, etc. Below the portal are fields that show the sum of the debits and credits, as well as the sum of debits and credits that are marked as reconciled with the bank statement. this provides an easy and reliable way to verify the accounting against bank statements and the like. Each of my account records is automatically assigned a unique serial number Account ID when it is created. When I create a Journal record within a transaction, and then select the account to post to, that Account ID is automatically entered in an Account ID field in the Journal record. The Journal record is thereafter related to the account by the Account ID. The system is set up also to generate a balance sheet and an income statement. This provides another level of checking for accuracy. It is also set up to generate a Detail Trial Balance for each account, which prints all the Journal records associated with that account, with appropriate summary calculations. FileMaker does have a feature called committing the record. This does not exactly match what you describe as transaction control, but it does assure that the record is indeed entered into the database. Thanks again for your information and advice. I think I have a pretty sound bookkeeping system using FileMaker. Bill SignatureTo send e-mail, remove .invalid [snip] > Thank you. You have added to my education about databases. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > related Journal records, and a field that displays a warning if the sum > of the debits does not equal the sum of the credits. [snip] without a transaction (database) what happens when the power goes down on a client or server (or crash of either) occurs? you will likely end up with partial transactions (accounting) also what about locked records during your accounting transactions ie 2 people trying to enter/sell/buy/credit/debit the same account/item? In comp.sys.mac.apps - article <bbcollins-C85AE8.17303420022005 @news1.east.earthlink.net>, on Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:30:29 GMT, B Collins says... > FileMaker does have a feature called committing the record. This does > not exactly match what you describe as transaction control, but it does > assure that the record is indeed entered into the database. I suspect that is what I refer to as FLUSH/SYNC, forces a write to the disk otherwise things get cached in memory for performance. > Thanks again for your information and advice. I think I have a pretty > sound bookkeeping system using FileMaker. It does. If your daily/weekly/monthly reports or your balance sheet or income statement don't check for the debit/credit sum discrepancy I would suggest that you add it, if you aren't catching transaction failures in a real-time scope, you need to verify every time you generate reports or close periods, the sooner the better, otherwise errors could go undetected until after business decisions are made on erroneous information. > > FileMaker does have a feature called committing the record. This does > > not exactly match what you describe as transaction control, but it does > > assure that the record is indeed entered into the database. > > I suspect that is what I refer to as FLUSH/SYNC, forces a write to > the disk otherwise things get cached in memory for performance. No, they are two different things. Committing the record assures tht the record is indeed entered into the database. Flush forces a write to the disk. SignatureRodger In comp.sys.mac.apps - article <mUcSd.47643$i42.7033 @fe1.columbus.rr.com>, on Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:50:42 GMT, Rodger says... > > > FileMaker does have a feature called committing the record. This does > > > not exactly match what you describe as transaction control, but it does [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the record is indeed entered into the database. Flush forces a write to > the disk. Hmm, Filemaker certainly seems out of sync with the terminology the rest of the DB world relies on. The rest of the DB world simply uses "write" and "commit" is reserved for transaction processing. Most if not all commercial DBs have mechanisms to force their buffers to be written to the OS and send a semaphore to the OS forcing the cache to be written to disk, typically called FLUSH which long ago before DBs used caching, relying on OS optimized caching instead, used to be a simple call to the Unix command SYNC which forced the OS to write all it's buffers to disk. I purchased a copy of FM pro a couple of years ago 2001-2002? for a Mac oriented client to use to access an Oracle system I was writing, there was some sort of problem, it's inability to connect via ODBC or something rudimentary and I simply threw it away, I found it lacking in many areas and not worth pursuing, but that was in a Windows environment. Options in the Mac world are more limited. That client was running 4D client/server, on an NT Server when I arrived and it's capabilities were quite robust but we were looking for something that could grow into a 10-20 processor scale system, I don't know if they have a single user/desktop version priced in the Filemaker range or not. > In comp.sys.mac.apps - article <mUcSd.47643$i42.7033 > @fe1.columbus.rr.com>, on Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:50:42 GMT, Rodger [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > don't know if they have a single user/desktop version priced in the > Filemaker range or not. Well, if you look at historically where 4D and Filemaker came from, it sort of makes sense. Filemaker 3 was Claris' database offering, essentially a flat-file, GUI-driven, single-user information manager. The Names Quilt used it to store their quilt-maker's database and was overjoyed when Claris updated it to store more than 32K records. I don't think it was intended to ever replace a transaction-based DBMS like Sybase or Oracle. There are other databases out there now that run on MacOS X, but 4D is the only one that uses transactions with a client/server model. My guess is if you want the safety of transactions, stored procedures, and a real DBMS capable of handling large volumes of data (1M+ rows), you _could_ go to Postgres on a MacOS Xserver with a tape backup system. Or run the same thing on Linux on a X86 box. Or spring for Oracle. Both can run on a Windows and MacOS, which was news to me. I thought 4D was pretty much a Mac-only application. SignatureDeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee... > I don't think it was intended to ever replace a transaction-based DBMS > like Sybase or Oracle. There are other databases out there now that run > on MacOS X, but 4D is the only one that uses transactions with a > client/server model. ...except for things like Postgres. And doesn't MySQL do transactions these days? > My guess is if you want the safety of transactions, stored procedures, > and a real DBMS capable of handling large volumes of data (1M+ rows), > you _could_ go to Postgres on a MacOS Xserver with a tape backup system. > Or run the same thing on Linux on a X86 box. Or spring for Oracle. ...but then I guess you knew that... SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X. Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more. See http://www.atomicbird.com/ > > I don't think it was intended to ever replace a transaction-based DBMS > > like Sybase or Oracle. There are other databases out there now that run [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ...except for things like Postgres. And doesn't MySQL do transactions > these days? MySQL 5 was supposed to have stored procedures but I haven't heard if transactions are on the feature list. It's still in beta, isn't it? For me, MySQL 3 is good enough. My ISP doesn't offer 4.1, so I write stuff that just uses the 3.x feature set even though I can run 4.x on my MacOS X development system. SignatureDeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee... > > > I don't think it was intended to ever replace a transaction-based DBMS > > > like Sybase or Oracle. There are other databases out there now that run [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > MySQL 5 was supposed to have stored procedures but I haven't heard if > transactions are on the feature list. It's still in beta, isn't it? At <http://www.mysql.com/products/mysql/> they claim the current version (4.1) has transactions, if you use the right table type. I haven't put it to the test myself. I see 4.1 is also supposed to support foreign keys, which I didn't realize. I may have to migrate my Postgres DB to MySQL. I chose Postgres to get transactions and foreign keys, which weren't available in MySQL at the time. But I ended up running MySQL anyway for some other tools that required it (and to have a local mirror of my hosting company's setup). It'd be nice to lose the need to run two DBs on the same Powerbook. SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X. Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more. See http://www.atomicbird.com/ > > I don't think it was intended to ever replace a transaction-based DBMS > > like Sybase or Oracle. There are other databases out there now that run > > on MacOS X, but 4D is the only one that uses transactions with a > > client/server model. > > ...except for things like Postgres. Oracle Corporation /has/ come with a MacOS X version of Oracle Enterprise Edition. http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/database/oracle10g/in dex.html It does, however, demand MacOS X 10.3 Server. SignaturePer Erik Rønne > > > I don't think it was intended to ever replace a transaction-based DBMS > > > like Sybase or Oracle. There are other databases out there now that run [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It does, however, demand MacOS X 10.3 Server. The "things like" part was intended to be sufficiently broad to cover more than just Postgres, without going to the trouble of tracking down every possible choice along those lines. SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X. Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more. See http://www.atomicbird.com/ > > > > I don't think it was intended to ever replace a transaction-based DBMS > > > > like Sybase or Oracle. There are other databases out there now that run > > > > on MacOS X, but 4D is the only one that uses transactions with a > > > > client/server model. > > > ...except for things like Postgres. > > Oracle Corporation /has/ come with a MacOS X version of Oracle > > Enterprise Edition. > > http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/database/oracle10g/in > > dex.html > > It does, however, demand MacOS X 10.3 Server. > The "things like" part was intended to be sufficiently broad to cover > more than just Postgres, without going to the trouble of tracking down > every possible choice along those lines. I should think that Oracle {the world's number one relational database} is more than "things like". But of course, I've got years of experience as a professional Oracle developer. SignaturePer Erik Rønne > > > > > I don't think it was intended to ever replace a transaction-based > > > > > DBMS [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > is more than "things like". But of course, I've got years of experience > as a professional Oracle developer. OK, maybe I should just drop it, but what _would_ you consider to fall under "things like" Postgres, if not Oracle? I guess MySQL falls into that group. What else, and why not Oracle? It's an industrial strength SQL-based database, and so is Postgres. SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X. Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more. See http://www.atomicbird.com/ > > > The "things like" part was intended to be sufficiently broad to cover > > > more than just Postgres, without going to the trouble of tracking down > > > every possible choice along those lines. > > I should think that Oracle {the world's number one relational database} > > is more than "things like". But of course, I've got years of experience > > as a professional Oracle developer. > OK, maybe I should just drop it, but what _would_ you consider to fall > under "things like" Postgres, if not Oracle? I guess MySQL falls into > that group. What else, and why not Oracle? It's an industrial strength > SQL-based database, and so is Postgres. I wouldn't say that Postgres is an industrial strength database. It's a good freeware kernel with a user interface, psql, which is similar to Oracle's sqlplus, but it has never had a tool as strong as SQL*Forms and successor Oracle Designer/Developer. And although sqlplus is a must for developers, sqlforms is a must for end-users - and much of the developing process is on making these cross-platform forms. SignaturePer Erik Rønne > > > > The "things like" part was intended to be sufficiently broad to cover > > > > more than just Postgres, without going to the trouble of tracking down [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > developers, sqlforms is a must for end-users - and much of the > developing process is on making these cross-platform forms. Interesting. One of my clients has terabytes of genetic sequence data and their scientific research results concerning it. All stored in Oracle, and accessed via SQLPlus, Access, and a whole passel of different custom Java and .NET applications. They could do everything they are doing now with postgres, mysql, SqlServer, etc., but they find Oracle has better uptime. It is not a lack of sqlforms that makes them stay, but reliability and the impact of the bugs they have found. From their perspective, the other options do compete quite successfully, and they find them "industrial strength". Scott > > I wouldn't say that Postgres is an industrial strength database. It's a > > good freeware kernel with a user interface, psql, which is similar to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > other options do compete quite successfully, and they find them > "industrial strength". OK, but in Denmark I have never really found software houses that developed for PostgreSQL. But lot that develop for the Oracle platform. And, btw, I do consider a kind of forms developing tool a must in databases. Users simply can't be supposed to use SQL*Plus or psql for ordinary tasks like inserts or look-up. It is a developer's tool, and a tool for people with special needs - like people who need special information from the database. You can't expect a clerk to use SQL directly, but you can expect a statistician to do so. SignaturePer Erik Rønne >>>I wouldn't say that Postgres is an industrial strength database. It's a >>>good freeware kernel with a user interface, psql, which is similar to [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > information from the database. You can't expect a clerk to use SQL > directly, but you can expect a statistician to do so. all the more reason to use a complete develoment environment - say... 4D In comp.sys.mac.apps - article <1gspot7.gonoskye8scrN% spam@husumtoften.invalid>, on Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:20:13 +0100, =?ISO- 8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?= says... > > > > > I don't think it was intended to ever replace a transaction-based DBMS > > > > > like Sybase or Oracle. There are other databases out there now that run [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > is more than "things like". But of course, I've got years of experience > as a professional Oracle developer. I understood "things like" to mean that which is more than a desktop application utility environment. It would include Postgres (marginally), Oracle, DB2 and it's ghosts of Informix (rest it's soul), Sybase and a couple of odd ones. Anything where the client computer is writing and capable of corrupting the data file (file structure, not data content) is not part of that group. I wouldn't consider MySql as part of that group, while popular on the Internet, it has and is not robust in the basic needs. While they may have or will soon roll out some of those needs, they will need a good "burn in" period before I put a real system on it. One may want to reconsider the boldness of a statement like "world's number one", while true today in the 'Nix arena, DB2 and SQL Server are gobbling up previously held Oracle turf in large bites with distinctively different market shares for 'Nix vs. Win platforms. Much of what made Oracle appealing is simply not a distinctive factor anymore. I'm not saying they aren't useful in specific situations. Raid boxes and Network storage obsoleted much of Oracle's tunability. If you're require large scale and may migrate to various platforms, Oracle is still top dog but if you're in the 90% of the marketplace that don't, DB2 or SQL Server is easier to maintain. HOWEVER, being an PLSQL guy myself, an Oracle backend fronted by Oracle Designer/Developer is a hard combination to beat. But, I don't know many shops putting Oracle on Mac Servers though I've known some top shelf developers in years past (pre-Y2K) that did their development on Macs. > One may want to reconsider the boldness of a statement like "world's > number one", while true today in the 'Nix arena, DB2 and SQL Server [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > an PLSQL guy myself, an Oracle backend fronted by Oracle > Designer/Developer is a hard combination to beat. I'd say that these features are a must. But when I have been developing in Oracle it has been as an IBM consultant in large Danish entities like Copenhagen Airport, or for the State of Denmark which almost entirely uses Oracle {though most of the clerks think it is Access:-)}. But of course, national registers and a common administration system for all Danish universities /do/ have special needs. BTW, only public universities are allowed in Denmark, private schools that call themselves "universities" aren't allowed to give their graduates the Danish academic titles - titles which are protected by law. My own academic title, /candidatus scientiarum/ in computer science {six years after the A-levels}, similar to English MSc is thus protected, and anyone who unrightly uses the title may get punished. SignaturePer Erik Rønne > > In comp.sys.mac.apps - article <mUcSd.47643$i42.7033 > > @fe1.columbus.rr.com>, on Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:50:42 GMT, Rodger [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Both can run on a Windows and MacOS, which was news to me. I thought 4D > was pretty much a Mac-only application. I do not mean to suggest that anyone who is using 4D or some other capable database manager that they are happy with should switch to FileMaker. I will simply say that FileMaker has advanced very considerably in the last few years, and can handle very large relational multi-user databases quite reliably. It is also very easy to learn to use. Many of the limitations you mention from the older versions no longer apply. For example, FileMaker Pro 7 allows up to 8 terabytes per file and up to a million tables per file (yes, FMP 7 can have multiple tables per file, which earlier versions could not). Individual text and container fields can store gigabytes of information. FileMaker 7 can communicate and exchange data with applications that use XML, ODBC and JDBC. FileMaker Server can host up to 125 files. Hosting by FileMaker Pro is more limited. I am not an expert on other database managers, so please excuse my ignorance. From reading this thread, I have the impression that some of the concerns about transaction-level control are actually handled by the way the FileMaker user interface works. I may be mistaken about this, but I do not find the kind of lack of security and reliability that you mention. FileMaker has become very capable and solid. I think that it is not appropriate to criticize it based on short acquaintance with an early version. If you have not looked at FileMaker for a while, perhaps you should. You might be pleasantly surprised. You can get more info at the FileMaker web site http://www.filemaker.com if you wish. Bill SignatureTo send e-mail, remove .invalid In comp.sys.mac.apps - article <vilain-A6ACF3.12550921022005 @comcast.dca.giganews.com>, on Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:55:09 -0800, Michael Vilain says... > My guess is if you want the safety of transactions, stored procedures, > and a real DBMS capable of handling large volumes of data (1M+ rows), > you _could_ go to Postgres on a MacOS Xserver with a tape backup system. > Or run the same thing on Linux on a X86 box. Or spring for Oracle. IIRC, for personal, development or non commercial use, Oracle is free. > Both can run on a Windows and MacOS, which was news to me. I thought 4D > was pretty much a Mac-only application. 4D was running on an NT server and 98/NT clients. Seemed fairly stable but was not multi-processor aware, some of it's report builder GUIs reminded me of Access/Crystal, one of my Oracle programmers noted that it's scripting looked a lot like VBScript. We were looking a growing to a good sized Sun box, well beyond hardware capabilities of NT or OSX, I recall pricing out boxes in the $300-400k range, not including SunOS or Oracle. I started that project out on a dual 800mhz P3 with 4gig ram, 512k raid and 6 spindles with room to grow another 24 spindles. Never panned out beyond that. >>On 2005-02-17 02:20:11 -0500, spam@husumtoften.invalid >>(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?=) said: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > snip transaction - in a database sense- this means the ability to completely rollback (or confirm) an action. for example adding an invoice. you go through the entire process and at the very end the customer says "...never mind..." without transactions any inventory adjustments, sequence numbers handed out etc etc etc may have already been committed, and in a multi user system undoing this becomes a significant 'trick' with a transaction NONE of the activities (inventory adjustments etc) are committed until the transaction is completed (validated), so canceling is a simple matter and. > Are there differences which favor 4D or FileMaker as a database? I'm > inheriting a DB from a Windows user who set it up in Access. I'm told it's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > On the other hand, is there a Mac DB that's as dumb as Access? :-> > I'd like not to spend big bucks on this. Betcha you're sorry you asked. I just converted (in half an hour or so) a printed reports database that someone sent me in Access form. I exported the tables in DBASE form and imported 'em into FileMaker no problem. I suspect that if I worked at it (a lot) I might have gotten the forms, but they I was principally concerned with the data and that's what I got. I think what you're getting in the newsgroup is a collection of DBAs with auditors hot on their tails anxious to pound them a new orifice should an incomplete transactions get posted to their database. I don't know if your information is that critical, but my suspicion is that it is not (or it wouldn't have been done in Access in the first place). I'm not a Filemaker developer - just someone who wants to organize data in a form less cumbersome than Excel. My databases are all small (largest so far is about 60k records), and any relational needs I have are pretty mundane. I used to use Panorama (which I don't believe was truly relational), but their licensing and protection drove me nuts and I went to Filemaker just to leave their paranoia behind. Filemaker has its glitches: sometimes some of my related fields get exported weirdly (if I forget an option), and sometimes the insertion point in a data entry field gets lost so it's not really pointing where it ought to, but for the most part Filemaker Pro v7 is pretty solid. What it is humanly understandable, and relatively easy for this Mac user to figure out - which, incidently, Access was not (particularly with the prodigious documentation distributed with a full install of MS Office). Anyway, I think what you ought to do is let folks know what your situation is, and where you're coming from so that can help filter your replies. Is this a mission critical database? What are you priorities? Do you just want to get something that mostly works for a minimum of effort, or are you a DBA trying to find a product which will allow you to produce synchronized backups with audit trials? It's your thread, but before you can get the information you desire you have to limit the scope of what you're asking for. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.