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

Re: libpq vs ODBC

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 (view raw or flat)
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.

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: alan bryanDate: 2010-12-10 06:38:00
Subject: Re: Hardware recommendations
Previous:From: John W StrangeDate: 2010-12-10 01:57:17
Subject: Re: Hardware recommendations

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