I’m reading about SQL and NoSQL stuff and end up with the site called db-engines.com. There is a ranking page as below:
| Rank | DBMS | Database Model | Score | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2016 |
Nov 2016 |
Dec 2015 |
Dec 2016 |
Nov 2016 |
Dec 2015 |
||
| 1. | 1. | 1. | Oracle  |
Relational DBMS | 1404.40 | -8.60 | -93.15 |
| 2. | 2. | 2. | MySQL |
Relational DBMS | 1374.41 | +0.85 | +75.87 |
| 3. | 3. | 3. | Microsoft SQL Server | Relational DBMS | 1226.66 | +12.86 | +103.50 |
| 4. | 4. |  5. |
PostgreSQL | Relational DBMS | 330.02 | +4.20 | +49.92 |
| 5. | 5. |  4. |
MongoDB |
Document store | 328.68 | +3.21 | +27.29 |
| 6. | 6. | 6. | DB2 | Relational DBMS | 184.34 | +2.89 | -11.78 |
| 7. | 7. | 8. |
Cassandra |
Wide column store | 134.28 | +0.31 | +3.44 |
| 8. | 8. | 7. |
Microsoft Access | Relational DBMS | 124.70 | -1.27 | -15.51 |
| 9. | 9. | 10. |
Redis |
Key-value store | 119.89 | +4.35 | +19.36 |
| 10. | 10. | 9. |
SQLite | Relational DBMS | 110.83 | -1.17 | +9.98 |
MICROSOFT ACCESS IS STILL ALIVE AND IT IS NUMBER (7) in the list. This is so weird. I don’t understand how this site measures the rank of the site! It says it is using popularity but how I have no clue! But this shocked me!
Vincent
January 7, 2017 — 9:22 pm
My client’s access application is still functioning well, it does what client needs for his factory. That application had some major issues in the past, I spent lots of time fixing the bugs and stabilized the application. Since then, the only thing I need to do for this client is to maintain the db e.g. compact, split due to the access db size limitation.
zanganeh
January 8, 2017 — 10:50 am
I heard about these experiences alot and I’m amazed. I think u r app was great that survived!