On Wed, 2017-06-07 at 20:40 +0000, Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 at 20:12:22 UTC, cym13 wrote: > > > It should be noted that the benchmark isn't fair, it favours > > the sqlite3 implementation as parsing and preparing the > > statement isn't measured. And yes, it's still faster which is > > cool ^^ > > > > Yes the benchmark is biased slightly in favor of sqlite3 C > implementation. > But sqlite-d does not have the ability to parse sql to the point > where it could implement that functionality. > Also sqlite-d is inefficient in quite a few places and is slowed > down by auto-decoding as I discovered just now.
But what is D's equivalent to Python's SQLAlchemy? C++ now has sqlpp11. Anyone doing SQL code manipulation with strings in another language is doing it wrong. Internal DSLs FTW. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
