The relatively poor performance of QZDASOINIT might be due to the client. Typically a database tool would not only need to retrieve the data, but it would also have to retrieve the table metadata to know the column data types. A CGI interface has no such requirement.
An apples-to-apples comparison would be, for example, a Java program that uses an HTTP client to consume the CGI program results and JDBC to consume an SQL result set. I suspect that comparison might come out just about even, but I don't have time to invest in backing that up with testing.
________________________________________
From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Nathan Andelin [nandelin@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 1:32 AM
To: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: [WEB400] XMLSERVICE with .Net
From: "Dean, Robert"
I'm actually reserving judgment. I'd like a little more detail on the tests.
Based on the descriptions Nathan's provided, I have a concern that it
might not be an apples-to-apples comparison.
I tried to make it clear that I wasn't testing calls to XMLSERVICE procedures or comparing its CGI interface vs. its QZDASOINIT interface. I was just bench marking my own CGI interface vs. a QZDASOINIT interface for downloading SQL result sets to my browser, Visual Foxpro, and IBM i Navigator.
The CGI interface performs slightly better than the QZDASOINIT interface, in my benchmark.
So I question Alan's and Brian's performance "warnings" with respect to the XMLSERVICE CGI Interface.
-Nathan
--
This is the Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries (WEB400) mailing list
To post a message email: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400
or email: WEB400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at
http://archive.midrange.com/web400.
midrange.com
