Hi again!

At 22:04 24.02.2003 +1000, you wrote:

>So why is it better to user Access, then to use a product such as Firebird.

Simply because you still speak as if Firebird was a desktop database.

>Is it because Firebird is more aimed at being a client/server product.

Firebird is essentially a client/server database.

> >That lawn definitely needed a tractor.
>ie not being limited in the future by lack of forethought at design time?
>This is one of the reasons why I steered away from Access. I wanted to use
>an RDBMS that would continue to meet any needs. Rather then use Access and
>find out later that upgrading the application would require converting
>database from Access to Firebird (or another product like it).

If you're willing to put in the extra effort required to learn c/s thinking
and accept that things may be very different from what you're used to with
Access, then go for it! Though you may not need many of the benefits of
Firebird until your system goes c/s.

>I have created metadata for what my database is to look like, and if it
>sheds any
>light at all, I will post it below. However I am not expecting you (or
>anyone) to go that deep into it all.

I took a quick look and my only comment is that you must remove those
indexes that are duplicates of keys (primary or foreign) - it only confuses
the optimizer to have duplicate indexes. You may keep the descending ones,
keys just create ascending indexes (I think).

Set