lots of people complain about the huge overhead of odbc and how horrible it is, and every time I ask them to show me some real numbers that show a significant performance impact. Of all those who have loudly complained about the horrors of odbc, I have not had a single person take me up on my request and show me any numbers at all to support this theory.
If there is not any real numbers to show a real impact, we can not make a call about if the performance difference would justify increased complexity of supporting anything other than odbc. Mike On Feb 26, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > > > On 02/26/2010 05:08 PM, Anthony Minessale wrote: >> >> We use the odbc for any in-tree sql stuff because we are trying to remain >> database agnostic. >> if it's your own module it's ok but if you want to contribute it, we would >> appreciate using ODBC > ok, thanks. If I understood the architecture, default sql engine in the core > is sqlite, with option to replace it with odbc at compile time. > > odbc is indeed an abstract layer, but you lose from the power of underneath > sql engine. And some out there don't like odbc much, asking to avoid it :-) . > > Daniel > Sqlite is mostly there just so it works out of the box, any serious implementation should probably use something via odbc. _______________________________________________ FreeSWITCH-dev mailing list FreeSWITCH-dev@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-dev UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-dev http://www.freeswitch.org
