Joe Sam Shirah skrev:
Hi Thorbjørn,

You still need the ODBC driver. The JDBC driver is special because...

I'm not particularly interested in defending Microsoft technology, but
I'm not sure I get your point, other than I would agree that Java/JDBC is a
superior solution. You still need a JDBC driver as well. Do you commonly
make code changes to the JDBC driver, or is that really a code term for
"free"? There are other ODBC drivers available in addition to the one with
Client Access.
I think it is a code term for "freely and easily redistributable".
I have spent much time inside the toolbox but not much in the SQL driver, but the value of being able to say to a customer "You do not need Client Access installed to run this program" is high, and has made it possible to make programs that I literaly thought nobody used, but only apparently because nobody had problems with it. This is not a testament to my programming abilities but the quality of the Sun Java system and the IBM Java toolbox, combined with a good launcher so we could just give customers a single EXE file instead of a full installer based application.

As to building the table on the AS/400, then using the ODBC driver with
SQL Server to copy the table to SQL Server for performance reasons:

Is this the fault of the database driver, the network or the database

None of the above. Sorry for not communicating more clearly. The
I am not a native speaker so I might have misread you.

bugaboo was that the client had ended up with a system that had part of the
data on the AS/400 and the other part on SQL Server. The real solution was
to put everything in one database, but I didn't have that option, and had to
integrate with the existing system and schema. Doing distributed queries
with joins to multiple tables *in different databases* ( "different" here
meaning not just on another computer, but also on a completely different
DBMS ) was too expensive in terms of processing, regardless of which
database was the host.
A reasonable conclusion. A _lot_ of data might have to migrate over the wire.

Because downstream processing eventually depended on data resident on
SQL Server, I moved the table from the AS/400/DB2 to SQL Server. However,
the initial data all came from the AS/400. I could get it built from SQL
Server by using the AS/400 ODBC driver with a distributed call. However, it
turned out to be far faster to continue building the table on the AS/400 and
then let SQL Server use ODBC for a copy of the single table.
Thanks for the explanation. I thought it was DB2/400 that was slow and SQL Server that was faster, but it was essentially the two databases in tandem that was too slow.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


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

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by 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.