We Keep Coding

Which framework and database should i use?

I am looking at creating an application to record gym workout(set,reps, etc) and I was wondering what framework and database backend to use. I am currently thinking C# .Net 3.5 for the framework because I am familiar with it but I'm unsure about how to store the data. Originally I was thinking of xml files and parsing through them but that seems like more work then is needed. If I was to use SQL would I be able to run that from my own machine (Windows 7) and what would be the best method to connect? ODBC, LINQ etc.
Thanks in advance

Linq-to-SQL is a very easy to learn, easy to use and straightforward way to map database tables 1:1 onto domain objects in C#. You can install the free SQL Server Express editions on your machine locally, and use Linq-to-SQL against those.
It has a great set of features, visual designers, and using LINQ queries against SQL Server tables is really quite powerful to use and nice to write.
So unless you have any specific requirements (like supporting backends other than SQL Server or such), I would definitely recommend going with Linq-to-SQL first.
Tutorials:
Scott Guthrie has an outstanding blog post series on Linq-to-SQL and how to use it - highly recommended
The NerdDinner ASP.NET MVC demo app also contains Linq-to-SQL and you can learn a lot from it - great 100+ page intro tutorial as PDF or in HTML format
a bit more advanced: Hooked On LINQ has tons of articles, demos, how-to's and so forth - for LINQ in general and Linq-to-SQL specifically

I would use SQL Server 2008 R2 Express for the backend. It's free and powerful enough for most smaller apps.

Not quite there yet, but this looks like a great place for SQL CE 4.0. Check out ScottGu's post about it: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/06/30/new-embedded-database-support-with-asp-net.aspx

Since it seems to be a small utility kind of application and the database wouldn't be very large I'd suggest to use the SqlCE database. It makes sense to have the database embedded in your app rather than have a server based database. That way you could easily just copy/share your app without having to bother about the database setup.

If you're willing and able to get away from Microsoft solutions. I would highly suggest taking a look at the Ruby on Rails framework as well. It's great for getting things up and running quickly.

Any ORMs that work with MS-Access (for prototyping)?

I'm in the early stages of a project, and it's not clear yet whether we'll need a "real" database (i.e. SQL Server et al). So I've been doing some prototyping using MS-Access, which is working fine so far. (developing in C#/VS2008/.Net 3.5/MS-Access 2000).
However, the object-relational impedance mismatch is already becoming annoying, and will only get worse as the project evolves.
I have not been able to find an ORM that will work with MS-Access. Any suggestions?
Edit - Follow Up
We ended up using Fluent NHibernate, mainly because it Automaps our object model to a relational database, which has been a huge win for us. Most of the FNH code samples we found used SQLite, and this worked so well that we intend to use it for our production database. (The app is a desktop scientific data collection and analysis package).

MSAccess files can be set up as an ODBC source on Windows machines. Almost any ORM will allow you to use ODBC. Here is a quick tutorial on how to set that up, it's outlined for Win2k but the process is the same for XP+. You also need to have MDAC installed on your box.
NHibernate seems to have native support of MSAccess as well, see here. I've never used it though. It also has an ODBC driver.. Many others support ODBC as well.
And again, as others are saying.. MSAccess does not scale... period. Installing a real database server is fairly easy, so I'd recommend SQL Server Express as others have, or even MySQL or Postgre, whatever is easier to set up.
If this is an application that you intend to deploy to clients, with each client having their own unique database, I would recommend another solution entirely, SQLite. SQLite gives you database power on an app by app basis. If you have a central database server, one of the previously mentioned solutions would be best.

There's only one scenario when choosing the Access Database Engine is a good choice: when building a self-contained Access application using Access Forms (though choosing to use Access in the first place is a questionable choice ;)
The database engine that VS2008 plays nicest with is SQL Server and you will have no problem finding an ORM that plays nice with SQL Server.

Can't give you an answer to your question, but instead of Access you might want to consider one of the following options:
SQL Server Express: is free and compatible with the full SQL Server
SQL Server Compact: also free, does not require any deployment/installation, does not support all features (e.g. no stored procedures).

At this stage, if you are unsure whether you need a "real" database or not, I'd skip MS Access and go straight to sql server express. It's free and still allows you to do everything you need to.
Plus, if you later decide you need to scale up, then you can without any pain.

I recommend you to use something like Microsoft SQL Server or PostgreSQL for prototyping. If you don't want to learn specific SQL syntax and install special tools for designing database schema, you can use ORM that automatically generates database schema from your persistent classes declaration. Anyway this approach is very effective for prototyping.

LLBLGen works with Access

Access is just a bad, bad idea. I believe MS only includes Access in Office to keep legacy users happy.
Even if you find an ORM that will work with an Access database, with few exceptions you're locking yourself into a niche tool that likely will not work out-of-the box with a real database engine. If you decide to switch to a real database engine later on, you'll not only have to deal with migrating the database, but switching to a different ORM.
See this comparison between SQL Server Express and SQL Server Compact. The comparison document also mentions some problems with other data stores, including Access.
If you are REALLY concerned about being able to install SQL Server Express, consider SQL Server Compact:
it can be linked into your redistributable app. No need to install a service (which may require admin rights during install of your application); everything is taken care of when you install your app. This makes the most sense if you need the data to reside on the user's machine instead of a server, and is most analogous to using Access.
It's less powerful than Express (doesn't support views, triggers, stored procedures, which I consider a requirement)
Can be scaled up to Express or other SQL Server versions very easily
Suitable for small-footprint installs like tablets, mobile devices, etc.
Always keep scalability in mind when designing any application. You don't want to wind up having to write a PHP->C++ compiler if/when your app becomes successful just because you picked the wrong tool up front.
While we're at it:
The big issue with Access (or, in this case, the Jet engine, which is the part you'd really be using when integrating an Access database with a .NET app) is that there is no "server" that handles datase requests. The engine, hosted in your app, must read and write directly to a file on disk that contains the database. Whenever this happens, the file must be locked to prevent concurrent writes. Dirty reads become more common as the number of users grows, as does the potential for database corruption.
Imagine having every customer at a large restaurant trying to simultaneously enter the kitchen to write down their orders or retrieve their food. Chaos would result. There'd be a lot of broken dishes, the kitchen would be a mess, you'd be lucky to get what you ordered in any sort of edible condition. With one customer, this probably works fine. With 5, eh, maybe. With 20,50,1000? Not so much.
So, the restaurant industry introduced waiters and managers that buffer IO to the kitchen. The database server application does something roughly analogous to this by restricting access to the files on disk. Everyone gets what they want, faster and in a much more reliable way, and the data store is protected.

What are some good sql databases for home Vista computer?

I have been trying for a long time to get SQL Server Express on my computer to practice my C#/SQL with and I still haven't gotten it to work.
Are there other programs I can use to setup an SQL database to practice with? If so, which are the best ones for Vista?
EDIT:
To be clear I am not new to SQL programming, I just haven't done any in a while and want to stay fresh. So I would like something that has most of the features of forms of SQL I would use professionally.

MySQL or Postgresql are both full fledged DB's and good for education/experimentation. You can also check out Oracles free version.

SQLite is good if you need something fast, small and powerful... its a fast download also.
SQLite
SQLite with C#

What aren't you getting to work for Sql Express. It works on Vista. I use it on a daily basis. It no longer comes standard with a "northwind" database, but you an download the AdventureWorks DB. Can you be more specific about "I still haven't gotten it to work"?
I've also heard good things about firebird
Although I still believe that C# and SQL Express is the best way to go.

SQL Server Express generally should be the natural choice for practice with .NET and C#.
If you have no prior experience in working with SQL Server and its Express version one most confusing thing is that SQL Server Express is not installed as default instance, but as SQLEXPRESS instance. So you have to use "Data Source=.\SQLEXPRESS" in your connection string.
In case you can not overcome issues with SQL Express you can try Postgres, but you will need to download and use .NET Data Provider for Postgres.

I preferr Firebird its a madure BD and its O.S. very stable btw.
http://www.firebirdsql.org/
and try ibexpert for manager this bd.
http://ibexpert.net/ibe/

Both Oracle and IBM offer offer versions of their flagship databases for free in a similar manner to SQL Server Express. Both are excellent products if you wish to play with a 'real' database system.
Oracle 10g Express
IBM DB2 Express
Postgres is also well worth considering as it is also a 'real' relational database, having originally started as the much respected Ingres RDBMS in the 1980s. However Postgress until recently was Unix-based and I've never found it particularly reliable installing on Windows.
Personally I would not recommend MySQL for your scenario - although the latest edition can finally be described as a RDBMS having evolved from what really was a collection of flat files with a limited SQL query interface it's peculiarities probably mitigate against it's use as a learning tool unless you are actually focused on MySQL.
There are a number of other less popular RDMSs you could consider. Firebird has always been something of a favourite of mine as I used to code a lot of Delphi, and SQLite is a joy to work with in many circumstances. It's also a pity you cannot use SQL Server Express as the SQL Server product range is simply the most solid product Microsoft produces and usually my database of choice on anything but the smallest, largest or most unsual installations

Vista DB is quite a nice lightweight managed flatfile database (not related to Windows Vista).

For something very simple look at sqlite It supports most SQL syntax and stores it's database in a single file so has very little setup. You'll need an ado.net data provider for it which you can find here Although it isn't a good choice for multi user systems with lots of data it should be fine for an introduction to database programming.

Single-user database options

I'm going to be writing a Windows application using the .NET framework and C#. The application will need to store relational data which will be queried, joined and processed.
Previously I've done this using SQL Server, but that is a total overkill for the application I am now making.
What's the simplest, easiest way to store relational data in my application? If I was on a Mac, I'd be using SQLite. What's the .NET equivalent?

If you are using VS 2008 and .NET 3.5, you can use SQL Server Compact Edition. It's not really a server at all, it runs in-proc with your app and provides a basic SQL database. The databases themselves are a single .sdf file and are deployed with your app. Since it's part of the framework, it also means there's no additional installation. Actually, It's not actually part of the framework, but it's easily redistributable. I'm using SQL Server CE for a personal project I'm currently working on, and it's turned out great so far.

SQL Server Express is what you want. It's free IIRC and easily scales into full-blown SQL Server when required.

Why cant you use SQLite? It works on windows.
SQLite Quick start.
Also see here for getting it to work with .NET http://web.archive.org/web/20100208133236/http://www.mikeduncan.com/sqlite-on-dotnet-in-3-mins/
So you could use SQLite if you wanted to but perhaps as others have pointed out SQL Express is a better option as you can upgrade to a full server if you need to in the future. Although from what you wrote i don't know if that's likely.

Sqlite is definitely the best option for embedded database for application storage.
It is free fast and reliable.

Sql Server Compact Edition (*.sdf files). Small enough for Smartphones but also available on the full platform. The .net 2 version was called Sql Server Mobile.
Here is a comparison between Compact and Express.

I haven't used it yet but if I was making a windows application and needed functionality similar to this I would use the built in windows database that's already on every single box of windows.
http://www.codeplex.com/ManagedEsent

You can use SQL Lite with .NET. In fact, if you are willing to keep your code so it can translate to mono, which encompasses most 2.0 (3.5 still upcoming), you can run your code on the Mac, as well, if you stick with SQL Lite:
http://mono-project.com/Main_Page
It really depends on how much bang you need. SQL Express, which has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, is SQL Server. It has some restrictions over full blown SQL Server, but it is the full SQL Server engine, so it is not a lite version, unless you think restricting a database to 4 GB makes it light. If you need heavier services like some Reporting, some message queueing (service broker), then SQL Express 2008 is your creature.
For lighter in the MS world, you can go with SQL Compact. As with SQL Lite, it is limited in scope, but you stated you need a lightweight database.
If you are really familiar with SQL Lite, I see no reason not to head that direction. Add a factory on top of your database access, just in case you change your mind. Then you will not have to rip up your entire app to switch databases.

Microsoft JET Blue.

If not sqlserver express, You may want to conisder Microsoft SQL Server Desktop Engine ( scaled down version of sqlserver) which is free in most cases. or MySQL which is also free. I'prefer mysql.

SQLite
Firebird
MySQL Embedded

I would say Microsoft Access. You need a licence though ...

Can you use LINQ tools such as SQLMetal with an access database?

I'm creating a small database application to teach myself the following concepts
C# programming
.Net 3.5 framework
WPF
LINQ ORM
I want to use Microsoft Access as the database but I can't seem to find any mention of whether its possible to use SQLMetal to generate the ORM code from a Microsoft Access database.
Does anyone know if this is possible?
If not, are there any small database or embedded databases I could use? I think SQL express would be overkill for me at this point.

For an embedded database, you can use SQL Server Compact Edition. Unlike SQL Server Express, it is not compatible with the LINQ to SQL designer, but it is fully compatible with the command-line SQLMetal. It has a few advantages over SQL Express, like to ability to use embedded or run from a file. Microsoft has a very handy chart outlining the differences between Express and Compact.

I don't think SQL Express would be overkill if you want to learn real-world skills - quite the opposite in fact! That'd be my choice, and whatever I chose, I'd stay clear of Access.
Good luck

AFAIK, Linq to SQL is MSSQL server provider specific. To be honest, SQL Express is pretty lightweight on todays machines.
BTW don't confuse LINQ with Linq to SQL. Linq is the underlying technology to provide "query" like support to .NET (amongst other things), where as L2S is effectively a Data Access technology built on top of Linq. Vanilla Linq will work with any ADO.NET provider, which of course Access is one.
Entity Framework will work with any compatible provider also but if SQLExpress is too heavy for you then I wouldn't recommend going down this path...

Thanks for all the responses. I never expected to get an answer this quick. For my test application I think SQL Server Compact Edition would be the way to go. I'm basically creating a money managment app similar to Microsoft Money and although it is an exercise to learn skills, I would eventually want to use it to manage my finances (provided its not too crap!)
This why I thought a fully blown database would be overkill.