From: | Roderick Scott Corporation <scott(at)rscorp(dot)ab(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Microsoft SQL Server Replication |
Date: | 2001-07-21 15:49:36 |
Message-ID: | v04210107b77f54ab5cde@[192.168.69.45] |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
>Interesting. SQL Server -> Access is a done deal, so that is no problem.
>There are scripts already to move from Access -> PGSQL. (Not usually using
>ODBC; most instead generate an SQL dump, which you can then load. I think
>that's even nicer.)
>
>I guess it hangs on how much of the real stuff is lost between SQL Server
>and Access; they're rather mismatched systems.
I did a project with Access and VB a few years back and ran into a
limit to the number of fields Access could have in a table. I don't
remember the exact number of fields but it was < 256.
While this is not a problem for most instances but in my case I had
to deal with a legacy system where some tables had >300 fields per
table. There were other nightmares but I won't digress. I just wanted
to point out one limitation I was aware of for this hopscotch
technique of harvesting data.
Scott
________________________________________
Scott Sandeman-Allen
Roderick Scott Corporation
Edmonton, Alberta. Canada
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-21 17:00:47 | Re: How Postgresql Compares For Query And Load Operations |
Previous Message | Mitch Vincent | 2001-07-21 15:48:16 | Re: How Postgresql Compares For Query And Load Operations |