Re: Performance of ODBC vs. other access methods

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's rare that I might disagree with Paul, but here goes - the 
following article speaks to a number of performance issues with ODBC. 
I believe the usual problem is not having the right indexes to 
support what you want to do. Of course, ASC does have a good product 
that uses a non-ODBC protocol, IIRC.

http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/iseries/db2/queryblues.htm

Take a look at the suggestions there before deciding.

Then there are articles at InfoCenter

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/topic/rzaik/rzaikperftuneodbc.htm
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/topic/rzaik/rzaikodbcperfconsd.htm

Also in the knowledge base

A COMMON presentation with some of the same info as other items here:
http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=nas1654bdb12726d8bff862566dd0053ac86&rs=110
Query performance different between interactive SQL and ODBC
http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=nas12c8fb5bb60a43fcb8625691500692bde&rs=110

Much of this comes originally from the venerable user guide for 
Windows 95/NT ODBC - still about the best discussion of what can make 
things go bad and good with ODBC.
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/QBKADE01/CCONTENTS

At 09:13 PM 8/30/2006, you wrote:

> In my experience, ODBC is *NOT a good performer. Even IBM will tell you
> this. I once had a client that had to upgrade to a bigger, faster machine
> because they were talked into using Oracle Reports as a means of
> duplicating what they had when they migrated from a DEC system to an
> AS/400. Of course, the machine their BP sold them was undersized to begin
> with.
>
> Even after their machine upgrade, they were not satisfied with the ODBC
> stuff. I was able to duplicate the ODBC reports with SEQUEL in about 2
> weeks, and the reports began printing in several seconds compared to
> several minutes.
> --
>
> Paul Nelson
> Arbor Solutions, Inc.
> 708-670-6978  Cell
> pnelson@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> "Dave Odom" <Dave.Odom@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 08/30/2006 06:50 PM
> Please respond to
> Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> To
> <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>
> Subject
> 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
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
> list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>
>
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.