🚀 go-pugleaf

At work, where many of us are relatively familiar with spreadsheets and
equally unfamilar with relational databases, we are struggling with this
question.  It seems to turn somewhat on the amount of data, the number of math
computations you do and the need for flexibility in reporting.  One thing to
remember it is not an either/or choice;  Excel and Access work together very
well.

Franz M�ller wrote:

> Hello out there !
>
> Do you know some good reasons to put (chemical) *laboratory data* in a
> relational database (Access or other, no matter) instead of Excel(-like)
> sheets (which is usualy, as I heared) ? Then please tell me them. I must
> write a programm to process this data and have to argument my choose.
>
> Thanks a lot !
>
> P.S. Please continue the discussion in only one group. I propose the group
> "comp.programming".
> --
> mailto:ewald@iname.com

Which is better a drill or a saw?

Either data store can hold your data.  What you want done with the data is
up to you.  Each tool has its strengths and weaknesses.


-- 
_____________________________
Andrew Shumway

The opinions expressed belong to martians blah blah blah.


Franz M�ller <franz.mueller@workmail.com> wrote in article
<01bcf168$00575ef0$01010101@pluto>...
> Hello out there !
> 
> Do you know some good reasons to put (chemical) *laboratory data* in a
> relational database (Access or other, no matter) instead of Excel(-like)
> sheets (which is usualy, as I heared) ? Then please tell me them. I must
> write a programm to process this data and have to argument my choose.
> 
> Thanks a lot !
> 
> P.S. Please continue the discussion in only one group. I propose the
group
> "comp.programming".
> -- 
> mailto:ewald@iname.com
> 

On 15 Nov 1997 01:50:15 GMT, "Franz M�ller"
<franz.mueller@workmail.com> wrote:

>Hello out there !
>
>Do you know some good reasons to put (chemical) *laboratory data* in a
>relational database (Access or other, no matter) instead of Excel(-like)
>sheets (which is usualy, as I heared) ? Then please tell me them. I must
>write a programm to process this data and have to argument my choose.

It depends a lot on your data needs.  Excel (or any spreadsheet) is
very good for presenting and manipulating a fixed set of data but is
less suited to data collection or logging.  

If the data has been collected (e.g. from an experiment, or from
external sources of information) and decisions must be made based on
the data 'post-mortem' then Excel is ideal, while Access is much more
suited to an incoming stream of real-time data, of which 'pieces' or
aggregates are presented to a user for decision making.



Brady Kelly
bkelly@icon.co.za

Brady Kelly wrote:
> 
> On 15 Nov 1997 01:50:15 GMT, "Franz M�ller"
> <franz.mueller@workmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >Hello out there !
> >
> >Do you know some good reasons to put (chemical) *laboratory data* in a
> >relational database (Access or other, no matter) instead of Excel(-like)
> >sheets (which is usualy, as I heared) ? Then please tell me them. I must
> >write a programm to process this data and have to argument my choose.
> 
> It depends a lot on your data needs.  Excel (or any spreadsheet) is
> very good for presenting and manipulating a fixed set of data but is
> less suited to data collection or logging.
> 
> If the data has been collected (e.g. from an experiment, or from
> external sources of information) and decisions must be made based on
> the data 'post-mortem' then Excel is ideal, while Access is much more
> suited to an incoming stream of real-time data, of which 'pieces' or
> aggregates are presented to a user for decision making.
> 
> Brady Kelly
> bkelly@icon.co.za

I presently maintain a small expermental access database that contains
lab data.  I prefer this access to excel because the data is "more"
accessable (no pun entended).  The reason I called it expermental is
that presently all our data is stored in excel and I have been looking
at differnet data handling methods in access.  The one big discovery is
that data normalzation does not work well with the lab data that I
handle. If the data is normalized and then displayed in a form in table
format the data is not editable.  This causes a problem when we are
checking data entry and discover an error that must be changed.  My work
around is to group types of analisis together in one table which when
displayed is editable.  I have spoke with a good friend of mind that
works for HP designing large databases and confirmed my methods.

What i truly like about access is that a report (graphs, tables, etc)
can be constructed that is usable month after month and with any other
data set (job sites). Additionally I can query across sites looking by
date and results to see if we have lab problems.  I must admit that the
graphing engine in execl 5.0c is better than access 2.0. but I would
expect that Access 97 engine is improved.

Bottom line, store the data in Access, and if you need to manipulate the
data unique to that data set, one time only, export to excel.

please respond if you have any questions.

owen kittredge
delta@quiknet.com
or owenk@sacramento.deltaenv.com