Lo, you should join the MIDRANGE-L list. This conversation really does
belong there, rather than here. You could argue that the discussion is at
least tangentially relevant since most people who advocate Java for business
logic also use JDBC, and so we're back to ODBC vs. native I/O, and ODBC is
an even poorer performer than static SQL, but that's another topic for
another day.
Just for the heck of it, though, could you tell me what the CPW is on your
machine? Or perhaps re-run your tests without commitment control and tell
me the results? I'd be interested to know just how much commitment control
really costs, since your tests were nearly 20 times as slow as mine.
You can email me the answer directly, if you find the time. One of these
days I hope to have a whole suite of tests that people can just download and
run on their machines to compare, but that project just keeps getting
delayed.
Joe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raikov, Lo
>
> first of all, sorry for what is probably an off-topic in the Java
> list. I'm
> not subscribed to MIDRANGE-L, but this was not the first time I heard that
> static SQL on the 400 is significantly worse in performance terms than
> native I/O.
