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 |
Subject: | Re: libpq vs ODBC |
Date: | 2010-12-09 05:51:26 |
Message-ID: | E1PQZPa-0000yV-Pd@hanssachs.home |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
,--- 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 --
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Divakar Singh | 2010-12-09 06:39:36 | Re: libpq vs ODBC |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-09 05:28:52 | Re: Slow BLOBs restoring |