Hi,
One thing I have always wondered, how do you deal with table locking if you
have a number of people using mySQL with ODBC?
Does ODBC handle it? Does Access do it? Can mySQL do it with Berkeley?
I am esp talking if you are using mySQL from many different locations and
working on the same table.
Thanks,
Eric
At 05:50 PM 2/8/01 -0500, James Treworgy wrote:
>Actually there is no reason to expect MySQL to perform better than
>Access for a nominally sized database and everything running on one PC.
>Access was designed and optimized for JET whereas ODBC is a
>general-purpose API.
>
>Also, the connection method impacts this significantly, as do the
>complexity of the query. For a simple test I did comparing connection
>methods from Access check http://www.trewtech.com/sqltest.html
>
>However, to see Access flounder horribly, simply put your MDB backend
>at the other end of an ethernet connection from your frontend.
>Now, for even more pain, add a few more users connecting to it at the
>same time. Access is _not_ a server and the kiss of death for an
>access database is to try to use it as a backend over a network. It's
>amazing how inefficient a query is when the "server" is actually the
>network filesystem.
>
>Add in absurdly long-running bugs that Microsoft denies exist - well,
>rather, since it's extremely difficult to actually report a bug to
>Microsoft without paying them for the privilege, perhaps they just don't
know - such as
>randomly corrupting memo fields - and it's essentially useless for anything
>but a very small database with a very small number of users, or only
>running on one PC with no network.
>
>Jamie
>
>
>Regards,
> James mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Thursday, February 08, 2001, 5:02:59 PM, you wrote:
>Q> We've got a server app that does a lot of 'small' database reads and
>Q> writes. We were originally using MS Access via DAO (Jet Engine) and we
>Q> wanted to tighten up DB performance, so we've written a general ODBC
>Q> database wrapper object, but mainly just to connect to MySQL. I figured
>Q> there'd be ODBC overhead, but its a lot worse than I imagined.
>
>Q> I want to know: does it make sense that our original system, connecting via
>Q> 'Jet-engine' to Access, is actually much faster than connecting to MySQL
>Q> via ODBC? This seems to be what's happened.
>
>Q> I'm wondering if it has to do with the overhead of connecting to a
>Q> server-based database via a tcp socket (even on localhost) rather than the
>Q> direct-to-disk Jet engine; maybe because we do so many small reads/updates
>Q> it's actually faster with Access? Any thoughts? Is it worth my time to
>Q> look into using MySQL directly instead of thru ODBC?
>
>Q> I'm obviously working on Windows (NT), connecting at ODBC version 2.0 to
>Q> MySQL server 3.23, using a database converted directly from Access to MySQL
>Q> using the cool (but unstable) DBTools GUI, which kindly retained all keys
>Q> and indexes (which have been reviewed for speed).
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Before posting, please check:
> http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
> http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
>
>To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
>
Frazier Consulting
http://www.kwinternet.com/eric
(250) 655 - 9513
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
