Re: OCI performance with user callbacks

From: roger <rsr_at_rogerware.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 16:11:18 GMT
Message-ID: <Xns92FC537294982rsrrogerwarecom@63.240.76.16>

I've noticed a marked lack of talk about OCI in this, or any other NG I've found, which really is unfortunate, since oh ya, the oracle OCI documentation is well, lacking. Actually, if it were just "lacking", it wouldn't be so bad. It's the outright lies and incorrect examples they throw in that make it extra special fun...

I do appreciate your responses, if for no other reason than for comiseration:)

I have several other questions about things like connection pooling, and signal handling, that I'm pretty sure would go unanswered, so I haven't posted yet.

Do you have access to, and have you tried Metalink? If so, what is your opinion of that?

Pablo Sanchez <pablo_at_dev.null> wrote in news:Xns92FC4727CEE9Bpingottpingottbah_at_209.242.64.107:

> roger <rsr_at_rogerware.com> wrote in
> news:Xns92FBDA73F3027rsrrogerwarecom_at_204.127.199.17:
>

>> Thanks again.
>> I haven't done too much analysis yet, thought I'd
>> troll for any easy answers here first:)

>
> FWIW, I don't think there's much expertise on OCI within the NG. I
> looked for some answers early on and nothing, so that's why I
> thought I'd respond even though I didn't have an exact match with
> your situation. Commiserate? :)
>

>> I'll be moving onto 9.2 RSN, maybe things will 
>> just get better, but I kind of doubt it.

>
> Yah, I kinda doubt it too ...
>

>> I can't imagine why one would use setjmp/longjmp 
>> to implement invoking some callback hooks, but then I 
>> suppose it's one way to do it.

>
> Yah, I don't know how it's done that's why I was thinking of a
> syscall trace to see what exactly is happening. 15% is pretty
> significant.
>

>> The psuedo code that I saw someplace in the 
>> oracle documentation (you'll pardon the expression:)
>> didn't suggest anything so elaborate was happening.

>
> Okay, so you're finding the documentation as 'lacking' as we found
> it. Oracle documentation for OCI is very bad and incomplete. ugh.
>
> You said you're on Solaris, if you're using
> OCIParamGet()/OCI_ATTR_DATA_SIZE the real data type to use is a
> 'ub2', the main docs state that a 'ub4' ought to be used.
>
> This one through me for a loop for a bit ... our 'shim' compiles on
> Windows, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, OSF, on the moon, underwater, etc etc
Received on Tue Jan 07 2003 - 10:11:18 CST