Future Use of SQL and Oracle

[genious]

I am looking at a project that would possibly entail the necessity of SQL or Oracle in the Future. Currnetly Oracle is in use but the user is finding their Oracle based system too regimented. I know that regimented is a good thing in a certain way but it is not good in this case.

The customer is not getting the full benefit of Oracle at the moment anyway. They have an abnormally low record count. Fewer high value complicated transactions.

If they move away from Oracle and we create a Filemaker system for them would I be able to put in SQL or Oracle back end without any experience of such? I have my background in filemaker not in these other languages.

They have already used Filemaker in the past, up to FM6 and liked it but now have found that they are not getting as much as they were hoping from the Oracle system.

[Paul de Halle]

FileMaker 8 fully supports SQL data access both in and out. We currently have various solutions where FileMaker needs to communicate with a SQL backend or even a front end on the web.

As long as your familiar with writing SQL statements, although FileMaker can help with fairly basic ones, then this shouldn't be a problem.

[Ted S]

Hmmm. Oracle is a huge company with different product offerings. One offering is simply a database and nothing else. It is like FileMaker because it can hold data but the similarities end there. Oracle uses SQL to both manipulate the data and to define the database schema. FileMaker Pro doesn't really use SQL. It will interpret SQL commands but I don't believe that SQL is at-its-core. FileMaker holds data and provides the tools to build an interface for presenting the data to the user. Oracle does not so if you are replacing an Oracle DB you are also likely replacing some other middleware (the interface).

Oracle is an enterprise class database whereas FileMaker is a workgroup or desktop class DB. Oracle is also (probably) the biggest and most scaleable database in the world. I would guess that the largest 10 corporations in the world run the core databases on Oracle. I would seriously doubt that any Fortune 100 company runs their core system on FileMaker. I think FileMaker is in these companies but at the workgroup or desktop level not the enterprise level.

Oracle also offers a suite of applications. Purchasing and implementing these applications often have costs that run in the millions of dollars depending of course on the size or the organization.

All of this lead me to the conclusion that FileMaker cannot necessarly replace Oracle. Certainly, some businesses run Oracle where they would be better off running something like FileMaker but I certainly wouldn't just come in and say FileMaker is up th the task.

It's a bit like saying that a Beechcraft King Air can replace a Boing 747. It can in some circumstances but certainly cannot in many others.