Board index » delphi » dBase VS Paradox

dBase VS Paradox

I've never used Paradox db structures and was wondering about the
benifits/drawbacks of Paradox Tables VS dBase Tables.  I know (from personal
experiance) that dBase tables are easily corrupted if the CPU hangs.  Mostly
the problem is the record count  field in the dbf header doesn't match the
actual number of records.  Also dbf's need reindexed on a regular bassis.
Do Paradox tables have the same problems?  Do they have different problems,
are the problems harder to deal with?

Thanks in advance

Roy Owen

 

Re:dBase VS Paradox


If you do a search here, or on Borland's forums, or on deja, you'll find an
order of magnitude more problems reported with Paradox tables.  They also
require far more file handles since each index is a separate file and the
index expressions permitted are far less flexible.

We've got a lot of customers (developers) who have clients with up to 50
users and hundreds of thousands of records that are having no problems with
dBase tables.

Paul / ColumbuSoft

Quote
Roy Owen <rwo...@servantpc.com> wrote in message

news:89e2mg$1p28$1@r01n03-e.telebeam.net...
Quote
> I've never used Paradox db structures and was wondering about the
> benifits/drawbacks of Paradox Tables VS dBase Tables.  I know (from
personal
> experiance) that dBase tables are easily corrupted if the CPU hangs.
Mostly
> the problem is the record count  field in the dbf header doesn't match the
> actual number of records.  Also dbf's need reindexed on a regular bassis.
> Do Paradox tables have the same problems?  Do they have different
problems,
> are the problems harder to deal with?

> Thanks in advance

> Roy Owen

Re:dBase VS Paradox


In article <89e2mg$1p2...@r01n03-e.telebeam.net>,
  "Roy Owen" <rwo...@servantpc.com> wrote:

Quote
> I've never used Paradox db structures and was wondering about the
> benifits/drawbacks of Paradox Tables VS dBase Tables.  I know (from
personal
> experiance) that dBase tables are easily corrupted if the CPU hangs.
Mostly
> the problem is the record count  field in the dbf header doesn't
match the
> actual number of records.  Also dbf's need reindexed on a regular
bassis.
> Do Paradox tables have the same problems?  Do they have different
problems,
> are the problems harder to deal with?

> Thanks in advance

> Roy Owen

Roy:

I suspect that a major reason why there are so many more "problems"
reported with Paradox tables is that they are used much more frequently
than are dBase tables. I would argue that Paradox tables at least tell
you they have a problem; dBase tables just let you keep on working with
a corrupted table.

Here are a few reasons why Paradox is superior to dBase:

1. Support for more datatypes.
2. Support for referential integrity.
3. Support for default values.
4. Limited support for contraints.

All this capability incurs an overhead. It also means that there are
simply more things that can go wrong with Paradox tables.

Having said all that, I use Access tables exclusively for my "desktop"
applications and the Diamond Access components in my applications. I
would never go back to either dBase or Paradox.

HTH,

Mike

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Other Threads