That is why we been called "IT". Go have rest.
The 150ms is the time is including Class.forName and Driver creation. MS SQL JDBC driver seems take less time than SQL DB JDBC driver. But driver loading is not the timer killer since I can pool the driver and connection. I cannot explain why SAD DB significant slow than MS SQL even on much better hardware.
Thanks
"Stephen Gutknecht (SAPDB)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
Geesh, too many hours working :) Very sorry to make such a mistake.
When you say 150ms load time for the JDBC driver, is that for a single SQL
statement?
Stephen
-----Original Message-----
From: XT Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 7:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Stephen Gutknecht (SAPDB)
Subject: RE: SAP DB vs MS SQL Performance
Thanks for the repy. First I need to clearify two thing
1. The basic test is against Microsoft SQL Server not MySQL
2. We are not try to find out which one is better. We try to justify why we
should move from PC Server Database to UNIX server.
The test is through the JDBC, which is our application environment.
The question is why M$ SQL (173,609ms) is twice fast than SAPDB (319,399ms)
to insert 10,000 64 byte record. I am not sure JDBC d! ! rive play what kind of
role this performance. One thing I notice is JDBC drive for SAPDB take 150ms
than to load than Mircrosoft JDBC driver. I used default configuration for
M$ SQL. The SAPDB configuration is used the one from the website. Here is
the configuration parameters.
[snip]
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
