Re: Migrating to OLEDB
From: Kevin Frey (kevin_g_frey_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 04/29/04
- Next message: S N: "Any alternative to memo fields?"
- Previous message: S N: "Any alternative to memo fields?"
- Maybe in reply to: David Pineda: "Migrating to OLEDB"
- Next in thread: Yuancai \(Charlie\) Ye: "Re: Migrating to OLEDB"
- Reply: Yuancai \(Charlie\) Ye: "Re: Migrating to OLEDB"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:36:53 +1000
I also would not be so confident about speed. In our tests the ODBC
implementation outperforms the MSOLEDB interface by about 10%.
OLEDB is almost complicated to the point of absurdity. To give you one very
good example, in ODBC you can define your required cursor type with a single
function call. In OLEDB there is no such concept and demands that you set up
to six different rowset properties to achieve [hopefully] the desired cursor
type.
Kevin.
"Dmitri Ivanov" <di2va4nov@0_digits_for_spammers_0.aha.ru> wrote in message
news:c6dr71$1asd$1@news.aha.ru...
> Hello Yuancai,
> "Yuancai (Charlie) Ye" <someone@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> YCY> 4. OLEDB has the same level of performance with ODBC.
> YCY> Specifically, SQL Server and Oracle providers are faster than
> YCY> their ODBC drivers now. Actually there is no other standard
> YCY> database interface faster than OLEDB in general. ADO.net can match
> YCY> OLEDB in retrieving records only.
>
> I would not be so confident about speed. The OLE itself is rather heavy
(to
> put it mildly) technology producing large code. In theory, it cannot
> compete with plain C performance anyhow.
>
> Brand vendors do not do their best to deliver good ODBC drivers because
they
> try to convince customers to switch to their proprietary interfaces like
> OLEDB or OCI.
>
> Third-party companies are in a different position. For example, DataDirect
> are developing wire-technology of ODBC drivers. Their driver for Oracle
> overperforms OCI, see benchmarking results in http://www.sqlsummit.com
>
> YCY> 5. An OLEDB provider provides more features than its
> YCY> corresponding ODBC. Actually there is no other standard database
> YCY> interface providing more features than OLEDB. ADO.NET can not
> YCY> match OLEDB in this aspect.
>
> My guess is that nobody is actually exploiting all the features ODBC. Want
> more? :-)
>
> YCY> 7. OLEDB is more flexible than ODBC. Actually there is no
> YCY> other standard database interface more flexible than OLEDB.
>
> ODBC is an international standard which is close to SQL-99 CLI. AFAIK,
OLEDB
> is only a vendor standard working on a single platform.
>
> YCY> 8. MS doesn't advance ODBC any more, but still advance
> YCY> OLEDB.
>
> A really proved standard need not be advanced or amended too often. Not
> advancing does not mean the absence of support. I do not expect MS to drop
> ODBC support from the marketing point of view. There are many independent
> DBMS and middleware vendors adhering to ODBC and producing ODBC drivers,
> including on Unix and Mac platforms.
> --
> Sincerely,
> Dmitri Ivanov
> Common Lisp ODBC interface - www.ystok.ru
>
>
- Next message: S N: "Any alternative to memo fields?"
- Previous message: S N: "Any alternative to memo fields?"
- Maybe in reply to: David Pineda: "Migrating to OLEDB"
- Next in thread: Yuancai \(Charlie\) Ye: "Re: Migrating to OLEDB"
- Reply: Yuancai \(Charlie\) Ye: "Re: Migrating to OLEDB"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
