Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Catacomb] [Ann] Catacomb ODBC

> This brings an important subject to attention: why wasn't ODBC
> considered in
> the first place? Why were RDBMS-specific modules being considerer
> (mod_catacomb_mysql, mod_catacomb_oracle or mod_catacomb_psql)?

IMO, two reasons:

a) programming directly against the DB was considered easier to implement
b) perception that performance would be better

Beyond this, I know that some implementors are using DB-specific stored

> The only reason that comes to mind is that there was some concern about
> performance or the associated bias that coding against a native API is
> necessarily better performant than through a generic layer like ODBC's.

A point well taken. Since we now have a WebDAV performance testing tool, it
seems like a good next step for us to profile Catacomb/ODBC vs
Catacomb/MySQL_native and see how they compare, and get some hard numbers.

At the very least I tihnk we should find a way to integrate your ODBC
implementation. What's unclear to me is whether this should replace
DB-specific interfaces, or be one choice among many DB interfaces.

- Jim