Nah. There are a lot of fields, and at least 100s of 1000s of records
(and growing).

I was really looking for ideas on how to do what I said, not ideas on
how to do something else; but thanks nevertheless.

Adam H. wrote in response to OP :

"how about not creating the database but just the structures. then on the
client machine you can treat everything as a disconnected tables etc and use
the builtin ado stuff for storage and lookup?"

Hi, this is very interesting : is there an example of this technique you
happen to know of in any CodeProject article, on-line resource ?

best, Bill

"sherifffruitfly" wrote:

Oh - wasn't even aware of sql compact - interesting. From the product
description:

"Desktop Deployment Options
Administrators can roll out SQL Server Compact Edition with a standard
Microsoft Installer package (MSI) with minimal effect on their users.
Using an MSI, SQL Server Compact Edition is installed in a standard
location, allowing servicing by Microsoft Update, Windows Server
Update Services, or Microsoft Systems Management Server.
Developers and ISVs can use Visual Studio 2005 to easily verify and
deploy SQL Server Compact Edition when using the ClickOnce deployment
option. Alternatively, SQL Server Compact Edition can be deployed by
copying the engine files (several DLLs totaling less than 2 MB) to the
application directory. The former option helps support scenarios where
the user does not have administrative rights on the computer."

Sounds very like the sort of thing I was looking for - thanks!

I assume that with sqlcompact, I would have the advantage of tools
integration (visual studio, etc.) over Firebird? What advantages does
Firebird have over sql compact?

Thanks again!