> I have heard that JDBC is faster than ODBC, but even with the > bridge I don't think you will suffer any performance issues.
It doesn't make any sense to say "JDBC is faster than ODBC". There are fast and slow JDBC clients, and fast and slow ODBC clients. I doubt that using the best Type 4 JDBC client against MS SQL Server will be as fast as using the standard ODBC client for it. Also, if by "the bridge" you mean the JDBC-ODBC bridge from Sun, if you use that you will certainly suffer performance issues. It's a Type 1 driver if I recall correctly, and designed more for demonstration purposes than anything else from my understanding. > If you have CFMX PR, then run a few tests against a CF5 > install, that's your best bet.... though I doubt the idea > was to release a product which was slower in performance > than its predecessors. I wouldn't be surprised if CF MX does turn out to be slower than CF 5 - it's more complex, it has to integrate with other products in a way that CF 5 doesn't, and so on. I hope that it's not much slower, though; that should be good enough. I think that the idea was to release a product that integrates fully with J2EE, more than it was to build something faster than CF 5. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ______________________________________________________________________ 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 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
