Is Excel good for storing data that constantly updates?

[Lallo]

I've been trying to decide if Microsoft Access would be better than Excel for
storing large amounts of weekly, quarterly, and yearly sales reports for my
restaurant business. I'm not sure if Access is the best fit ... any advice?

Thanks.

[Nick Hodge]

Lallo

It's an eternal question... I would err toward access and you can always use
Excel to analyse the reports produced. You are limited to 65k rows
(records) currently and that may mean changes too regularly

Access is a database tool...you could enter it here and easily bring it into
an excel pivot table to report via Data>Pivot table report or chart and then
use external data as your source and navigate to your Access
file/Table/Query

Personal preference, but start in the correct tool and if it is overkill,
move to Excel solely

--
HTH
Nick Hodge
Microsoft MVP - Excel
Southampton, England
www.nickhodge.co.uk
[email protected]HIS


"Lallo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've been trying to decide if Microsoft Access would be better than Excel
> for
> storing large amounts of weekly, quarterly, and yearly sales reports for
> my
> restaurant business. I'm not sure if Access is the best fit ... any
> advice?
>
> Thanks.

[Jerry W. Lewis]

What data are you storing
Why are you storing this data?
What will you do with the data?
Do multiple people need to simultaneously revise this data?
Do you need some protection against others changing entered values?
How well do you know Excel?
How well do you know Access?
How much time can you devote to getting this system set up (including
time spent learning the tool)?

The answers to these and perhaps other questions would have a big impact
on the answer to your question.

Jerry

Lallo wrote:

> I've been trying to decide if Microsoft Access would be better than Excel for
> storing large amounts of weekly, quarterly, and yearly sales reports for my
> restaurant business. I'm not sure if Access is the best fit ... any advice?
>
> Thanks.