Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PGDG ODBC, ODBCng, DBD::Pg

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,<pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PGDG ODBC, ODBCng, DBD::Pg
Date: 2006-09-29 07:28:31
Message-ID: E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E40176D15A@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-odbc
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-odbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org 
> [mailto:pgsql-odbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Joshua D. Drake
> Sent: 28 September 2006 23:26
> To: pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: [ODBC] PGDG ODBC, ODBCng, DBD::Pg
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I was running some basic benchmarks in comparison of the three
> aforementioned products. I thought I would drop a link here for people
> to compare:
> 
> http://projects.commandprompt.com/public/odbcng/wiki/Performance
> 
> One thing of note that is very positive IMHO is that PGDG ODBC and
> ODBCng both are showing that they can readily keep up with DBD::Pg in
> terms of basic performance.
> 
> Oddly, the ODBCng buffering option doesn't seem to offer as 
> much benefit
> as we thought it would but I need to test that with larger 
> (wider) data
> sets.
> 
> The versions tested were:
> 
> PGDG: 08.01.0200-2
> ODBCng: Rev 76
> DBD::Pg: 1.49

Any chance of running the same test again against psqlODBC 08.02.0100?
It's a totally different architecture to the 08.01 series. 

You might also try something like odbc-bench for some more realistic
tests.

Cheers, Dave.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: AndrusDate: 2006-09-29 11:05:29
Subject: Re: New release of psqODBC?
Previous:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2006-09-28 23:28:28
Subject: Re: New release of psqODBC?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group