I utilize Access databases frequently,
ignoring 'weird looks' given to me by IT professionals who consider anything
less than Oracle not a true database, but some sort of a 'toy'. However, DB2
fits the bill perfectly in some cases. Back in 1996, I had to resolve a problem
very quickly, by creating a 'tool' to keep track of problems encounters by
buyers from the procurement department in ordering certain parts, like parts
for old designs and currently unavailable due to obsolescence, or parts having
an unacceptable long lead time. The need was for a relatively simple and small
database, allowing recording of such problems, recording of the progress made
by the Component Engineering department in finding a solution and the recording
of the solution itself, when one was found. I selected IBM DB2 as a
platform, since it appeared relatively simple compared to more powerful
databases, and my proficiency in other members of the Office suite making the
learning curve shorter. And it worked very well. The implementation took only
three weeks and the results were very much appreciated by its users. I believe
this database it is still in use.
It cannot accommodate as many records or as many concurrent users an Oracle or similar database can.
It is not as reliable as a database of 'industrial strength' is.
It does not work fast, particularly when when large amount of code was used for its design or when a relatively many users attempt to utilize it simultaneously.
IBM DB2 is very suitable whenever the objective of the project is a database where:
1. The timeframe of the project must be short and the start of the project must be immediate.
2. Specialised personnel from IT department is not available, due to their own prioritization scheme.
3. The designer tasked with the design, implementation and deployment of the database, is a technically-oriented person in general, but having no previous knowledge of Access in particular.
4. The size of the envisaged database is relatively small, both in the number of records to be stored in it, as well in the number of concurrent users.