Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Microsoft Access vs Oracle: What are the differences?
Key Differences between Microsoft Access and Oracle
Microsoft Access and Oracle are both popular database management systems used in various industries. While they share some similarities, there are several key differences that set them apart.
Scalability: One major difference between Microsoft Access and Oracle is their scalability. Microsoft Access is designed for small to medium-sized databases, while Oracle is highly scalable and can handle large amounts of data and high user loads. This makes Oracle better suited for enterprise-level applications with high data volumes and complex requirements.
Data security: Another significant difference is in their data security capabilities. Oracle provides advanced security features, such as fine-grained access controls, encryption, and robust authentication mechanisms. On the other hand, Microsoft Access has limited security options, making it less suitable for applications that require stringent data protection.
Concurrency control: Oracle offers sophisticated concurrency control mechanisms, allowing multiple users to access and modify the data simultaneously without conflicts. In contrast, Microsoft Access has weaker concurrency control capabilities, which can lead to data integrity issues when multiple users are working on the same database simultaneously.
Support for programming languages: Oracle supports multiple programming languages, including SQL, PL/SQL, Java, and others, making it more versatile and flexible in terms of application development. Microsoft Access primarily uses its proprietary programming language, VBA (Visual Basic for Applications), which limits the range of programming options available.
Cross-platform compatibility: Oracle is designed to run on various operating systems, including Windows, Linux, and Unix, offering greater flexibility in terms of platform choice. Microsoft Access, on the other hand, is limited to the Windows platform, which can be a constraint for organizations using different operating systems.
Cost: While both Microsoft Access and Oracle have their respective licensing costs, Oracle tends to be more expensive, especially for larger deployments and enterprise-level solutions. Microsoft Access, on the other hand, is often bundled with other Microsoft Office products, making it a more affordable option for small-scale applications.
In summary, Oracle is a robust and scalable database management system with advanced security and concurrency control capabilities, suitable for enterprise-level applications and large data volumes. Microsoft Access, on the other hand, is more suitable for small to medium-sized databases and offers a more affordable option for simple applications with limited security and scalability requirements.
We have chosen Tibero over Oracle because we want to offer a PL/SQL-as-a-Service that the users can deploy in any Cloud without concerns from our website at some standard cost. With Oracle Database, developers would have to worry about what they implement and the related costs of each feature but the licensing model from Tibero is just 1 price and we have all features included, so we don't have to worry and developers using our SQLaaS neither. PostgreSQL would be open source. We have chosen Tibero over Oracle because we want to offer a PL/SQL that you can deploy in any Cloud without concerns. PostgreSQL would be the open source option but we need to offer an SQLaaS with encryption and more enterprise features in the background and best value option we have found, it was Tibero Database for PL/SQL-based applications.
We wanted a JSON datastore that could save the state of our bioinformatics visualizations without destructive normalization. As a leading NoSQL data storage technology, MongoDB has been a perfect fit for our needs. Plus it's open source, and has an enterprise SLA scale-out path, with support of hosted solutions like Atlas. Mongo has been an absolute champ. So much so that SQL and Oracle have begun shipping JSON column types as a new feature for their databases. And when Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) announced support for JSON, we basically had our FHIR datalake technology.
In the field of bioinformatics, we regularly work with hierarchical and unstructured document data. Unstructured text data from PDFs, image data from radiographs, phylogenetic trees and cladograms, network graphs, streaming ECG data... none of it fits into a traditional SQL database particularly well. As such, we prefer to use document oriented databases.
MongoDB is probably the oldest component in our stack besides Javascript, having been in it for over 5 years. At the time, we were looking for a technology that could simply cache our data visualization state (stored in JSON) in a database as-is without any destructive normalization. MongoDB was the perfect tool; and has been exceeding expectations ever since.
Trivia fact: some of the earliest electronic medical records (EMRs) used a document oriented database called MUMPS as early as the 1960s, prior to the invention of SQL. MUMPS is still in use today in systems like Epic and VistA, and stores upwards of 40% of all medical records at hospitals. So, we saw MongoDB as something as a 21st century version of the MUMPS database.
Pros of Microsoft Access
Pros of Oracle
- Reliable44
- Enterprise33
- High Availability15
- Hard to maintain5
- Expensive5
- Maintainable4
- Hard to use4
- High complexity3
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Microsoft Access
Cons of Oracle
- Expensive14