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.