Re: Pro*C or OCI, which is faster?

For an example of an OCI wrapper, have a look at my web-site:-

http://freespace.virgin.net/j.hatcher/ociwrap.htm

As for the debate between PRO*C and OCI, I would say it depends. PRO*C is a translated language, and hence what you write isn't necessarily what you get. I've spent many an hour untranslating the PRO*C code back into the original just to see where an error has occurred. With OCI, there is no need for any pre-compilation, just build and go!!

John.

Mladen Gogala wrote in message <37521E4B.3586D8B1_at_earthlink.net>...
>Thomas Kyte wrote:
>>
>> A copy of this was sent to manager43_at_my-deja.com
>> (if that email address didn't require changing)
>> On Thu, 27 May 1999 12:17:55 GMT, you wrote:
>>
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >OCI is more faster access method then Pro*C due to -
>> >
>> >each Pro*C statement is expand typically at five OCI statements -
>> >
>> >so if you remove "redundant" statements of OCI performance of your
>> >application based on OCI method will be more great then based on Pro*C.
>> >
>> >Vladimir
>>
>> Pro*c precompiles into SQLLIB. SQLLIB is a layer on top of our internal
API.
>> OCI is a layer on top of our internal API.
>>
>> Pro*c never compiles into OCI.
>>
>> It is true however that in many cases that Pro*C can do in one statement
what it
>> takes 5 or more calls in OCI.
>>
>> OCI has higher degrees of flexibility in that it is a lower level API
then Pro*c
>> is (to you the developer). You have more opportunity to control what
happens
>> and when with OCI.
>>
>> Pro*C is (in my opinion) more productive then OCI cause I can write lots
more
>> stuff faster with it (less code I write).
>>
>> I myself haven't found a quanitative difference between the 2. Poorly
written
>> oci runs slower then good pro*c and vice versa. Operation X might be
marginally
>> faster in OCI then in Pro*C (and vice versa). YMMV.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >In article <SxZtAAAVrxS3EwF9_at_rwx777.demon.co.uk>,
>> > Steve Haynes <steve_at_nospamrwx777.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> In article <3748F7A8.A5532E69_at_mail.com>, Andrew Babb
>> ><andrewb_at_mail.com>
>> >> writes
>> >> >James,
>> >> >
>> >> >I am not sure about the different versions of Pro*C, but OCI is
>> >faster than
>> >> >Pro*C. Not sure how much by, but this is something that Oracle states
>> >due to
>> >> >the fact that the call interface is at a lower level with OCI.
>> >> >
>> >> >Rgds
>> >> >Andrew
>> >> >
>> >> I suspect the difference is not significant when compared to
>> >> maintanance. oci 7 and 8 are way different, but pro*c is pro*c.
>> >> I have only used oci when I needed arrays of cursors and
>> >> pro*c didn't support it.
>> >> Steve
>> >> --
>> >> Please remove nospam from my address to Reply.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
>> >---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
>>
>> See http://www.oracle.com/ideveloper/ for my column 'Digging-in to
Oracle8i'...
>>
>> Thomas Kyte
>> tkyte_at_us.oracle.com
>> Oracle Service Industries
>> Reston, VA USA
>>
>> --
>> Opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Oracle
Corporation
>OCI, on the other hand, is ideal for creating C++ wrappers which can
>then be
>tailored to your application. Such constructs usually aren't very
>portable but
>can be very handy. It's much harder to that with PRO*C.
>--
>Mladen Gogala
>
Received on Mon May 31 1999 - 14:11:28 CDT