X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E9B9DCC81 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:40:40 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 82153-08 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:40:44 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02E09DCC7E for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:40:38 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0M0ednl002705; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:40:39 -0500 (EST) To: "Constantine Filin" cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: libpq vs. unixODBC performance In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to "Constantine Filin" message dated "Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:49:52 -0800" Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:40:39 -0500 Message-ID: <2704.1137890439@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.095 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095] X-Spam-Score: 0.095 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/403 X-Sequence-Number: 16881 "Constantine Filin" writes: > Do you have any ideas why libpq is so much slower than unixODBC? Perhaps ODBC is batching the queries into a transaction behind your back? Or preparing them for you? regards, tom lane