RE: Green screen - it's time is over

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have less problem with SQL than with ODBC, Dave.  If your SQL is
encapsulated in a way that your client doesn't use table or column names
(basically, if you don't have raw SQL statements in your client
application), then I'm okay with it, to a degree.  I still find SQL to
perform significantly worse than RLA for non-set-based database updates
(that is, when you're updating a small number of records, as in transaction
processing).

SQL is fine on the host for ad hoc queries and set-based updates (like
month-end rollovers and the like).  As long as the details of the SQL
statement are hidden from the client, I have no problem.

SQL is inappropriate for transaction updates - RLA performance is simply
superior.  Don't believe it?  Run a few tests.  I've published results
regularly that show that RLA is still at least 50% faster than SQL for
typical database updates and inserts.

ODBC, no matter what the application, goes against every possible tenet of
distributed processing.  It is slow, and it ties your host database to your
client code.  You cannot change even the names of your columns (much less
the physical layout and location of your data) without updating your client
code.  This is absolutely unacceptable.

Does that answer your question?

Joe Pluta
www.plutabrothers.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Bulog
>
> Joe,
> Im lost here,whats wrong with business rules in SQL? I would like to drill
> down deep to the nitty gritty of what you dont like aboubt SQL.
> BTW I thought IBM invented SQL in the first place
> Thanks in advance
> Dave