From: | "Pierre C" <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Divakar Singh" <dpsmails(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "Alex Goncharov" <alex-goncharov(at)comcast(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: libpq vs ODBC |
Date: | 2010-12-10 02:32:24 |
Message-ID: | op.vng70ayxeorkce@apollo13 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 06:51:26 +0100, Alex Goncharov
<alex-goncharov(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote:
> ,--- 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"?
Well you have to consider server and client resources separately. If you
waste a bit of CPU time on the client by using a suboptimal driver, that
may be a problem, or not. It you waste server resources, that is much more
likely to be a problem, because it is multiplied by the number of clients.
I don't know about the specifics of ODBC performance, but for instance
php's PDO driver's handling of prepared statements with postgres comes up
as an example of what not to do.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | alan bryan | 2010-12-10 06:38:00 | Re: Hardware recommendations |
Previous Message | John W Strange | 2010-12-10 01:57:17 | Re: Hardware recommendations |