Re: PL/SQL .vs. Pro*C

In article <01bd66f8$016bb380$2207030a_at_sahmad-pc.mfa.com>,   "Saad Ahmad" <saad.ahmad_at_mchugh.com> wrote:
>
> We are comparing apples and oranges, if we are comparing a
> host language (Pro*C, Pro*Ada etc.) to PL/SQL.
>
> PL/SQL is a database language, and it will be faster if the work you
> are performing is with the database. If you want to validate a date
> in your C program, and you decide to use the to_date function to
> do that - then PL/SQL will be slower - but the question is why are
> you using PL/SQL for such an operation?
>
> A complete application cannot be developed in PL/SQL because you
> cannot develop a front-end in PL/SQL. You need a 4GL (Forms,
> PowerBuilder etc) or a 3GL (C, Pascal etc). Pro*C is needed if you
> choose to use 3GL for the complete application (screens, reports,
> interface etc.) Should that 3GL application use Embedded SQL or
> Embedded PL/SQL - that depends on what you are doing. If you
> want to simply retrieve 100 records for your screen, a simple SQL
> fetch into an array will probably be faster. If you want to do a complex
> operation involving several cursors, then encapsulate the logic in a
> PL/SQL procedure and call that from Pro*C. Any host environment
> (4GL or 3GL) MUST accomodate for PL/SQL interface and that is
> for a variety of reasons:
> - Performance
> - Encapsulation of database tasks
> - Modularity
> - Availability to multiple technologies, ie. the same PL/SQL
> procedure may be called from Forms, Pro*C, Pro*Ada,
> SQR, Reports
> - etc.
>
> MatthewLF_at_pobox.com wrote in article <6gtbfe$1jc$1_at_nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > Am wondering if anyone out there has had experience using both PL/SQL and
> > Pro*C. Specifically, I'd like someone to explain to me why I would use
> Pro*C
> > to do something which could be done in PL/SQL. I have just been on a
> project
> > which used Pro*C with embedded SQL to do all Oracle operations. I did
> not
> > write any of the code myself, but I have written scads of PL/SQL. I
> found
> > myself looking at pages of Pro*C and thinking to myself that I could do
> it
> > much easier in PL/SQL since it was 95% data manipulation. The only
> argument I
> > have heard so far is that Pro*C is faster than stored
> procedures/packages. If
> > this is the only argument I'd like some feedback on just how much faster
> it is
> > (all of our routines on this project are too small to do any benchmarking
> > with). It seems to me that unless it is several times faster, the
> benefit of
> > execution time does not outway the nightmare of maintenance time.
> >
> > Thanks for any input.
> >
> > Matt.
> > MatthewLF_at_pobox.com
> >
> > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
> >
>

Hi.
 I wouldn't bet on ProC being faster. It is correct for non-SQL part of  your program, but oyu have to remember that stored procedures are  kept in compiled format compared with a need to parse all statements  in ProC.

  Michael.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading Received on Mon Apr 13 1998 - 15:12:06 CDT