Progress vs. SQL 
Author Message
 Progress vs. SQL

Could someone explain to me or point me in a general direction that
explains the differences between Progress and SQL?

My company is currently using Progress as both a database and a
development environment.  I love it, and everything is running fast on
our SCO Unix box.

I just got a new boss who is a big Microsoft fan.  He is considering
scrapping our existing system and rewriting it with SQL and probably a
Visual Basic front end.

I think Progress is a better enterprise solution, but I need some facts
to back this up.  Rewriting our database front end is a little overkill
in my opinion.

Any help is appreciated.

Thank you.

Tim Goldenburg



Fri, 10 Jul 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Progress vs. SQL

Quote:

> Could someone explain to me or point me in a general direction that
> explains the differences between Progress and SQL?

Progress is record oriented, SQL is (result) set oriented (that explains
the name relational databases). Progress will tell you that they do SQL
too. However, SQL is poor choice when you use Progress 4GL. Progress 4GL
is tightly coupled with the database for data manipulation.

Since Progress always uses the whole record (except with V8 field list),
you will pay performance penalty when you use client/server.

SQL databases more or less encapsulate the database functions e.g. all
the select, update, delete etc. are the responsibility of the server. In
Progress self-service client, every client is updating the
database directly (although some would argue that it is going through
shared memory).

Dynamic Queries are built into SQL databases. In Progress, you must buy
Query Runtime to run dynamic query.

It is certainly difficult to program applications in SQL-based language
than in record oriented language like Progress, but SQL is lot more
powerful in joins etc. Lot of the processing capability lies in server in
case of SQL databases. For example: joins, triggers, referential
integrity etc. is processed on the server as opposed to processing on the
client in Progress.

Progress is a very good choice in a host-based system. I don't know if
Progress database (not 4GL) is a good choice for client/server system for
complex applications.

Another lame but valid argument is that SQL is ANSI standard. However,
the syntax varies (it's kind of Unix).

Quote:

> My company is currently using Progress as both a database and a
> development environment.  I love it, and everything is running fast on
> our SCO Unix box.

> I just got a new boss who is a big Microsoft fan.  He is considering
> scrapping our existing system and rewriting it with SQL and probably a
> Visual Basic front end.

Join the club. You could pitch in Progress on Windows, with Progress or
SQL Server on NT.

Quote:

> I think Progress is a better enterprise solution, but I need some facts
> to back this up.  Rewriting our database front end is a little overkill
> in my opinion.

Think of it as an opportunity to learn a new language and a new database.
Quote:

> Any help is appreciated.

> Thank you.

> Tim Goldenburg




Sat, 11 Jul 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 2 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Progress vs. SQL Server

2. SQL vs. Progress database

3. Progress v6 vs. MS SQL

4. MS SQL vs Progress

5. Progress vs. MS SQL Server

6. ACCELL/SQL vs. PROGRESS

7. Progress V9 vs SQL Server 7

8. Microsoft SQL Server 6.5 Vs. Progress

9. Progress vs Oracel or SQL Server

10. Progress vs. MS SQL Server

11. MS SQL vs Progress

12. Sql Server vs Oracle vs Ibm vs....


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software