>Note that a vast majority of the application deals with read-only data -- no editing involved. Several of the tables have over 200,000 records, one has about 650,000 records, but in this new application performance isn't a problem at all.

With MS SQL 7 record locking shouldn't be a problem anymore.
The number of records isn't as important as the size of the table.
VFP is limited to 2 gig. If 2 gig isn't a problem then 650,000
is incidental.

>First sign of trouble -- I was asked to add a data record to all "satellite" tables (tables on a many side of a one-to-many relation) with a key of zero (I use integer keys) and an empty description. The idea here was that he was having performance problems (the main table had around 10,000 records), and this would avoid all SQL Server outer joins. This didn't set well with me at all (for starters, it would violate the VFP integrity rules I had set up as well as Codd & Date).

It would also violate MS SQL Server integrity rules if the database
was set-up that way.

>Okay, fine. Now he'd like SQL Server everywhere, citing that it's strategic to MSFT, integrates with MTS, has security, transactions and automatic replication, and 7.0 comes with record locking. He also states that the .DBF is dead, VFP isn't strategic, and any VFP solution is a "one-time" solution that isn't scalable.

Ask him has he ever programmed for MTS? What are the strengths? Bet he
can't even say. Do you even need MTS, security, replication, etc? dbf's
(VFP) isn't strategic unless you need it ... then it's strategic. MS
wouldn't have included it in in their top tier programming development
area if it was not strategic. Isn't scalable only if 2 gig is a problem.

>1) Performance. I *know* I'll come up with an application significantly faster with VFP against DBF's versus against SQL Server. Anyone with real world experience with this? His solution -- Hardware and denormalization.

I did time trials on VFP, MS SQL Server, Oracle, and a AS400 with
SQL queries (at the project I was on wealso barely ever had to
update the tables). The dbf table was 1.8 gig. The queries were
simple queries that were reflective of the ones we currently were
using. VFP in terms of speed won hands down. There wasn't really
any competition. (We chose anyways MS SQL Server because of
the 2 gig limit and because it was from MS.)

>2) Scalability -- SQL Server is, VFP isn't. I've said that this isn't an issue for this or any other application they're planning.

What is his definition of scalability? The EuroTunnel project that
used dbf's was scalable, ran 24 hours a day and still did backups.

>I've shown some details regarding West Wind's Web Connection
as a possible Internet solution when I or he can get to it --
doesn't change things.

I do think you'd be better off with Active Server Pages instead.
It is used by tens of thousands and support is an issue in keeping
your site healthy.

>3) Transactions and closeness with MTS -- Most of this application and others they develop is read-only. Transactions aren't an issue. Plus, they're comparing SQL Server with FPW 2.6, not VFP.

If he does know the benefits of MTS and that is critical
then MS SQL Server is the way to go.

>4) Network traffic -- Yes, there's less network traffic with SQL Server.

How many users? How many hubs and routers? I've seen network
bottlenecks that were quickly cured by additional routers and hubs.

>5) Replication -- Automatic replication with SQL Server. That's true, but this just isn't for this company. This is a commercial application. He's proposing having everyone somehow dial in, wipe out their data sets and bulk copy down 400 megs or so. I just don't see that happening flawlessly with every customer with SQL Server.

VFP doesn't support replication ... do you really need it?

>Things not mentioned -- Data Maintenance (DBA stuff). This is a breeze with VFP, but a bear with SQL Server.

Actually with MS SQL Server it isn't that difficult (even for me).
Now that replication stuff is a bear when a server goes down
and replicated databases aren't in sync. Beyond my scope.

Are you against MS SQL Server just because it isn't VFP dbf's
or
don't you need the power that MS SQL Server offers?