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=qoV00xSgthIc5fQI/Zj0GLL4k3+kVSbswKgpmJH1WrFcCDHLh0Fa0KEGkUR97rHa/n8bt89Dc2s0oT/rp0O6ZuocxtgS5FR3P0KVGBdYA66Z4OlX7ka6usqs6x1TybCkZFE6Pf39H0fQ86hl54jQ7Ho4JhZRnbpiXkJgmaqZxW8=;
Message-ID: <957894.71040.qm@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <772237.64789.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<E1PQYd3-0000wW-PB@hanssachs.home>
	<254429.23607.qm@web65410.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<E1PQZPa-0000yV-Pd@hanssachs.home>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 22:39:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Divakar Singh <dpsmails@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: libpq vs ODBC
To: Alex Goncharov <alex-goncharov@comcast.net>
Cc: alex-goncharov@comcast.net, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <E1PQZPa-0000yV-Pd@hanssachs.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1500843935-1291876776=:71040"

--0-1500843935-1291876776=:71040
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

hmm
If I understand it correctly you argument is valid from performance point of 
view.
But in practical scenarios, it would make more sense to do ODBC if the 
difference is only 5% or so, because it opens up so many choices of databases 
for me.
Do we have some published data in this area.


 Best Regards,
Divakar


________________________________
From: Alex Goncharov <alex-goncharov@comcast.net>
To: Divakar Singh <dpsmails@yahoo.com>
Cc: alex-goncharov@comcast.net; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 11:21:26 AM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] libpq vs ODBC

,--- 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"?

| 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?

You've got to measure -- there are too many variables to give you the
answer you are trying to get.

To a different question, "Would I use ODBC to work with PostgreSQL if
I had the option of using libpq?", I'd certainly answer, "No".

You'd need to have the option of using libpq, though.  ODBC takes care
of a lot of difficult details for you, and libpq's higher performance
may turn out to be a loss for you, in your specific situation.

-- 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


--0-1500843935-1291876776=:71040
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">hmm<br>If I understand it correctly you argument is valid from performance point of view.<br>But in practical scenarios, it would make more sense to do ODBC if the difference is only 5% or so, because it opens up so many choices of databases for me.<br>Do we have some published data in this area.<br><br><div>&nbsp;</div>Best Regards,<br>Divakar<div><br></div><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><br><div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Alex Goncharov &lt;alex-goncharov@comcast.net&gt;<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Divakar Singh &lt;dpsmails@yahoo.com&gt;<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b>
 alex-goncharov@comcast.net; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Thu, December 9, 2010 11:21:26 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [PERFORM] libpq vs ODBC<br></font><br>,--- You/Divakar (Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:17:22 -0800 (PST)) ----*<br>| So it means there will be visible impact if the nature of DB interaction is DB <br>| insert/select. We do that mostly in my app.<br><br>You can't say a "visible impact" unless you can measure it in your<br>specific application.<br><br>Let's say ODBC takes 10 times of .001 sec for libpq.&nbsp; Is this a<br>"visible impact"?<br><br>| Performance difference would be negligible if the query is server intensive <br>| where execution time is far more than time taken by e.g. communication interface <br>| or transaction handling.<br>| Am I right?<br><br>You've got to measure -- there are too many variables to give you the<br>answer you are trying
 to get.<br><br>To a different question, "Would I use ODBC to work with PostgreSQL if<br>I had the option of using libpq?", I'd certainly answer, "No".<br><br>You'd need to have the option of using libpq, though.&nbsp; ODBC takes care<br>of a lot of difficult details for you, and libpq's higher performance<br>may turn out to be a loss for you, in your specific situation.<br><br>-- Alex -- <a ymailto="mailto:alex-goncharov@comcast.net" href="mailto:alex-goncharov@comcast.net">alex-goncharov@comcast.net</a> --<br><br><br>-- <br>Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (<a ymailto="mailto:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" href="mailto:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org">pgsql-performance@postgresql.org</a>)<br>To make changes to your subscription:<br><a href="http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance" target="_blank">http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance</a><br></div></div>
</div><br>

      </body></html>
--0-1500843935-1291876776=:71040--