|
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.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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.