From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Divakar Singh <dpsmails(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alex Goncharov <alex-goncharov(at)comcast(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: libpq vs ODBC |
Date: | 2010-12-09 06:57:04 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikNQ109Ucgd7POoA_0rM2ZXBpjoDzt67YehaNNj@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hello
2010/12/9 Divakar Singh <dpsmails(at)yahoo(dot)com>:
> hmm
> If I understand it correctly you argument is valid from performance point of
> view.
> But in practical scenarios, it would make more sense to do ODBC if the
> difference is only 5% or so, because it opens up so many choices of
> databases for me.
> Do we have some published data in this area.
>
It's depend on your environment - VB or VBA has not native drivers, so
you have to use a ODBC. The overhead from ODBC or ADO or ADO.NET for
almost task unsignificant. So people use it. The performance problems
can be detected in some special tasks - and then is necessary to use a
stored procedures.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> Best Regards,
> Divakar
>
> ________________________________
> From: Alex Goncharov <alex-goncharov(at)comcast(dot)net>
> To: Divakar Singh <dpsmails(at)yahoo(dot)com>
> Cc: alex-goncharov(at)comcast(dot)net; pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 11:21:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] libpq vs ODBC
>
> ,--- You/Divakar (Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:17:22 -0800 (PST)) ----*
> | So it means there will be visible impact if the nature of DB interaction
> is DB
> | insert/select. We do that mostly in my app.
>
> You can't say a "visible impact" unless you can measure it in your
> specific application.
>
> Let's say ODBC takes 10 times of .001 sec for libpq. Is this a
> "visible impact"?
>
> | Performance difference would be negligible if the query is server
> intensive
> | where execution time is far more than time taken by e.g. communication
> interface
> | or transaction handling.
> | Am I right?
>
> You've got to measure -- there are too many variables to give you the
> answer you are trying to get.
>
> To a different question, "Would I use ODBC to work with PostgreSQL if
> I had the option of using libpq?", I'd certainly answer, "No".
>
> You'd need to have the option of using libpq, though. ODBC takes care
> of a lot of difficult details for you, and libpq's higher performance
> may turn out to be a loss for you, in your specific situation.
>
> -- Alex -- alex-goncharov(at)comcast(dot)net --
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Olivier Pala | 2010-12-09 10:52:14 | UNION and bad performance |
Previous Message | Divakar Singh | 2010-12-09 06:39:36 | Re: libpq vs ODBC |