Re: ODBC vs. OCI

Adrian Challinor <adrian_at_a-cha.demon.co.uk> wrote in article <AE730B17966898A17_at_a-cha.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <324C1694.15FC_at_classifieds2000.com>,
> "Anthony J. Garot" <tony_at_classifieds2000.com> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone give me the disadvantages of using ODBC vs. using
> > OCI?
> >
> > It seems everyone is Pro ODBC.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > tony_at_classifieds2000.com
>
> The biggest difference is one of SPEED (as in, this is not a word you
> normally associate with ODBC). ODBC is the use of the lowest common
> denominator - it tries to communicate with all client/server databases,

Not true. You COULD use ODBC for a Lowest Common Denominator solution, but you can also take advantage of DB-specific features if supporting multiple DB vendors is not an issue. The ODBC API itself adds no significant time to the execution time of an application.

> thus it generally does not deliver a very high through-put.

This is the fault of the DRIVER, not of the ODBC API. For example, the MS SQL Server driver is just as fast as DB-LIB calls. If your DRIVER is slow, that is a problem for the driver vendor to resolve. I've designed several commercial products that use ODBC for database access, and performance is not any worse than using the "native" API. The key is to use a decent DRIVER, and have an efficient DB schema.

>
>
>
> Adrian P Challinor +44-181-852-1605
> Osiris Consultants Ltd 0860-290883
>
> I know money talks. I heard it. It said "Goodbye!"
>
>

regards ...

 Raimundo Comas		| Views and opinions in this
 Computer Scientist		| message are MINE! ALL MINE!
 Comshare, Inc.			| and not my employer's (but
 rcomas_at_comshare.com 	| they'd probably agree with me)