Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038001337B5A
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  9 Dec 2010 00:31:40 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 25400-02
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  9 Dec 2010 04:31:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from nm2-vm0.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com
	(nm2-vm0.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com [98.139.52.66])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 862E8133655C
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  9 Dec 2010 00:31:32 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [98.139.52.191] by nm2.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
	09 Dec 2010 04:31:31 -0000
Received: from [98.139.52.140] by tm4.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
	09 Dec 2010 04:31:31 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1023.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
	09 Dec 2010 04:31:31 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 16113.43338.bm@omp1023.mail.ac4.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 65438 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Dec 2010 04:31:30 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024;
	t=1291869090; bh=AHYbep/Ff5B7zOWevm+G2K0kpHK6vt57SJWX5nD3KBE=;
	h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
	b=UUWH0SdTVvbENqnRsmsGQe5zZwxdlXnQUnNXZZiscTrVTrjEAskch9hblDFagP3Isbvxinezw8EN2fQsTP49fIOVH3I3T5DuhtPH5DrCsDenY9GRbuDiyHKVkVdmO5X4p9/eRJnrRiM5wFtM8zMgLu/Cz3Cma+seAQeuzewCNd0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
	h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
	b=q2h4ASd0B2BSrkXTDRQXaHwK5UkldgjTflVkedIA2OHlw/+SdiCSxdj0iZqob5IWqCBD+wGRUIMEjJRJ1mgfGWdIZMu5BLMxmOnAuZ1NeE2hTOEz0BLObWFvuteVYGDPGZGAkJdomn9N1IV1VXDgD9LjaU+wO+9xeo1HlkjnQrU=;
Message-ID: <772237.64789.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
X-YMail-OSG: VfP2qm8VM1mePweNZvwlw4aM.rq60FPtj_aiuhiBdcvbruR
	v_8Cdij40vdw_0Fx.YSIqeG4zlheA6MQhDgj7pDSreSLRyUNiyQgDz09.yCn
	mhH2JQd9Qe0Wz_Atm2xE6POtQoo3wHYOYRMeh7p0jygXDkYSJiQjGpi97fZS
	CmDSka22Pwezw24PhGlrCDGvd7Lha_eW8gG46r4RULexW.9VBjHCybUJTeXw
	4g3.cTiEnu7VzY9vEfX2mJV1Bknw2CWykbEjUEfDzeWEo_WXWCuFZTrgSJXf
	.F6KLUzbALfeisxSw_fadMvaf32Yuw18jpB09Ht2hC8Lxm18YNTjz7wc-
Received: from [194.237.142.20] by web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com via HTTP;
	Wed, 08 Dec 2010 20:31:30 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/553 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.285259
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:31:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Divakar Singh <dpsmails@yahoo.com>
Subject: libpq vs ODBC
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1596067600-1291869090=:64789"
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.803 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_50=0.8,
	FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
	RFC_ABUSE_POST=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01,
	T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL=0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201012/135
X-Sequence-Number: 41587

--0-1596067600-1291869090=:64789
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Is there any performance penalty when I use ODBC library vs using libpq?

 Best Regards,
Divakar



      
--0-1596067600-1291869090=:64789
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;color:#0000ff;">Is there any performance penalty when I use ODBC library vs using libpq?<br><div>&nbsp;</div>Best Regards,<br>Divakar<div><br></div>
</div><br>

      </body></html>
--0-1596067600-1291869090=:64789--