Dave Watts wrote: > > That's very interesting. In general, most of the things I'd heard in the > past with regard to other databases recommended the use of Type 4 drivers > because they'd provide better performance by not having to talk to a > middleware layer. I'd assume that the IBM folks know best when it comes to > DB2, though.
The better performance of Type 4 drivers is mainly when compared to using a Type 1 driver. I can imagine Type 2 being faster as Type 4 because you can implement certain features, such as a connection pool, on a lower layer so if you have both CF MX and BlueDragon running on one system they can share a connection pool. But unless you are moving massive amounts of data around, the difference in processing speed of normal queries should be marginal. If you have a query taking 100 ms, of which 80 ms in the database and 20 ms in the JDBC layer, a 50% faster JDBC layer will only result in a 10% faster query. The reason for the popularity of Type 4 drivers is that they are portable. They only depend on the presence of a JRE, which is pretty much guaranteed when working with Java. A Type 2 driver is written in a combination of Java and C, so you just have to be lucky there is one available for you when running Mac OS or some other less common platform. Jochem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
