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.
Best Regards,
Divakar
From: Alex Goncharov <alex-goncharov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Divakar Singh <dpsmails@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: alex-goncharov@xxxxxxxxxxx; pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 11:21:26 AM
Subject: Re: 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@xxxxxxxxxxx --
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
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.
Divakar
From: Alex Goncharov <alex-goncharov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Divakar Singh <dpsmails@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: alex-goncharov@xxxxxxxxxxx; pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 11:21:26 AM
Subject: Re: 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@xxxxxxxxxxx --
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
