× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



ODBC itself is fairly efficient, and is quite a bit more efficient than SOAP 
and XML based data interchange, but when you open a server for remote access 
via ODBC you never know what type (perhaps even malicious) or amount of 
workload will be generated by ODBC clients, and it's hard to manage.

It puts the responsibility for managing workload and performance into the hands 
of end users, and the tools they choose.

Nathan.



----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Odom <Dave.Odom@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:53:29 PM
Subject: [WEB400] Performance of ODBC vs. other access methods

What's the prevailing wisdom backed up by real world experience when
using ODBC from whatever tool or programming language to access DB2/400
or ORACLE versus using some other remote or distributed access method
such as DRDA, calls to stored procedures or API calls?   I've been told
that ODBC is a good performer but have my doubts.

What's your experience show vs Ivory Tower tests?

Thanks in advance,

Dave

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.