Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4A61337B4A for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 01:17:31 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01356-09 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 05:17:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from nm16.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (nm16.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com [98.139.52.213]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D9D501337B55 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 01:17:22 -0400 (AST) Received: from [98.139.52.194] by nm16.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Dec 2010 05:17:22 -0000 Received: from [98.139.52.180] by tm7.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Dec 2010 05:17:22 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1063.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Dec 2010 05:17:22 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 467630.59402.bm@omp1063.mail.ac4.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 24600 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Dec 2010 05:17:22 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1291871842; bh=uU+aBORhhk1xOru574H6J/cGil7YyJBRunsvxONC0gA=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=kyLxsMb3LoFpGsXoWC6cgWII87q2KwhBc1bJdjodFdGc/M2y3iHLJNpW5Nj97qtB0E8ovIICilV4GjbyXTj1n8jHOMbOt/Yg3Rc6arq7vLENLwqKkUQdl4nj4+t5InKSOWCxwWi5+AhcNylYxDDQEsmhFl9veywdp6q90wtjq8Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=jRZRozDVMXC6D2Wxg58C7v/7+nQcfSyvTwZQP7XRW6ifBKW4y6sFeYREdHM2K45ERRDnoAehK5xurKFxJcV2NgibjCfSUh7tlN8bBtCdOHEQK4dJuJ/Vd3E7/VgHrJglFYQDzc6ti9U+83auoY1GVTDEwpXASSjpG6Krid3WKGs=; Message-ID: <254429.23607.qm@web65410.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: ZWZk7WwVM1kSyC59eqc6x4bsObJchgoLgYVkUx0n1bzn5kz GXZqOqjRvIAjg5gwV3FyzCUbyU6p5bafVDYTBqPI4U4zhIovDeAOwvyl64qj naPs8pe.n21uoj_LpUHBYuV1hw5OwHhLAtV5s6tV2s3EPiJbvJfM1xKlAeZ. MAnmax_3opsEA391DNVP9opOi99m_FttdFr.Ffmvxwl9_hvdnKrIjKdlk27w DiO8V4bn20MauYg.bp_VHIhcp2z5yEkIFl50QjI4ROhz2Cg7Zuz9zPv6T4PN w4pNbS3NWsfiyHybDZA8pC7PzwwWpJlNmqUpUw4YMJ3kVtUDeHc2gYQv6Dr6 dq450vmPMHP.2glDDJg-- Received: from [194.237.142.20] by web65410.mail.ac4.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 21:17:22 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/553 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.285259 References: <772237.64789.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:17:22 -0800 (PST) From: Divakar Singh Subject: Re: libpq vs ODBC To: Alex Goncharov Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-167429766-1291871842=:23607" X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.022 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1.929, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RFC_ABUSE_POST=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201012/137 X-Sequence-Number: 41589 --0-167429766-1291871842=:23607 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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. 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? Best Regards, Divakar ________________________________ From: Alex Goncharov To: Divakar Singh Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 10:31:17 AM Subject: Re: [PERFORM] libpq vs ODBC ,--- You/Divakar (Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:31:30 -0800 (PST)) ----* | Is there any performance penalty when I use ODBC library vs using libpq? In general, yes. In degenerate cases when most of the work happens in the server, no. You need to measure in the contents of your specific application. -- Alex -- alex-goncharov@comcast.net -- -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance --0-167429766-1291871842=:23607 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
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.
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?
 
Best Regards,
Divakar


From: Alex Goncharov <alex-goncharov@comcast.net>
To: Divakar Singh <dpsmails@yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 10:31:17 AM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] libpq vs ODBC

,--- You/Divakar (Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:31:30 -0800 (PST)) ----*
| Is there any performance penalty when I use ODBC library vs using libpq?

In general, yes.

In degenerate cases when most of the work happens in the server, no.

You need to measure in the contents of your specific application.

-- Alex -- alex-goncharov@comcast.net --

--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

--0-167429766-1291871842=:23607--