Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A521E1337B7F for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 22:32:37 -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 95070-08 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 02:32:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from 63.mail-out.ovh.net (63.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.185.56]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0CE011337B49 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 22:32:29 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 25020 invoked by uid 503); 10 Dec 2010 03:06:37 -0000 Received: from b9.ovh.net (HELO mail188.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.59) by 63.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Dec 2010 03:06:37 -0000 Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Dec 2010 04:32:26 +0200 Received: from par69-8-88-161-102-87.fbx.proxad.net (HELO apollo13) (lists%peufeu.com@88.161.102.87) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Dec 2010 04:32:25 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <772237.64789.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <254429.23607.qm@web65410.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: libpq vs ODBC To: "Divakar Singh" , "Alex Goncharov" Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:32:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Pierre C" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.62 (Linux) X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 10464395210568631819 X-Ovh-Remote: 88.161.102.87 (par69-8-88-161-102-87.fbx.proxad.net) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-Spam-Check: DONE|U 0.5/N X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201012/145 X-Sequence-Number: 41597 On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 06:51:26 +0100, Alex Goncharov 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.