Re; [plug] SQL client query

[Craig Foster]

I know for sure that MySQL has a Win95 ODBC driver.

Is that an option?

Craig Foster
fostware at omen.net.au

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Hunt <Michael.J.Hunt at usa.net>
To: PLUG Mailing List <plug at linux.org.au>
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 1999 2:24 PM
Subject: Re; [plug] SQL client query


> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> Dave,
>
> Take a look at my early post "Four SQL server comparisons". A search of
the
> PLUG archives might also give you some more info on the issues you are
> looking into.
>
> My understanding is this: every SQL server has its own ODBC driver which
may
> or may not be up to the same standard as the SQl server end. So in
> considering speed issues you must:
>
> (a) Consider the client end OIDBC drivers speed
> (b) Consider the SQL server end speed
>
> By the sounds of it your are going to have to consider both sides in order
> to get "faster speed" out of you database system. Is the current system
slow
> on the server end or at the client ? Does processor utilization go up when
> you do your requests or is it more a case of network traffic or disk
speed.
> Do some investigation into where the bottle neck is in your current system
> before switching it to a Linux solution because hypothetically it is
> "faster". Experience has shown me that these things have a tendency to
come
> back and bite you if you don't do your homework. *grin*
>
> One thing I might investigate if I was in your shoes is the ability to
write
> a web based solution for generating these "four page reports". If for
> example the MS ODBC drivers were causing lots of network traffic and
"tying
> up the LAN" a web based solution could "hypothetically" mean little
network
> traffic with more of the work be done at the grunter database server end.
> This could make the LAN more available to other users which could be the
> solution to the problem.
>
> Id say consider all the issues, find out where all the current problems
> actually lie, and then look at all the possible solutions such as putting
in
> a 100 meg switch or more RAM for the SQL server before going down the
> porting the app route.
>
> Sorry if this sounds like it has come from a consultant because
> unfortunately that is what I spend most of my time doing these days *grin*
>
> And stick in there, because you'll get your linux box in there one day.
And
> if you do your homework when it comes time to put the best solution in for
> the job, they will trust your judgment because it has been proved in the
> past.
>
> Michael Hunt
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-plug at linux.org.au [mailto:owner-plug at linux.org.au]On Behalf
> > Of Michael Hunt
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 3:37 PM
> > To: PLUG Mailing List
> > Subject: [plug] Four databases for Linux compared
> >
> >
> > Hiya all,
> >
> > Anyone interested in comparison on Linux databases may want to read this
> > article on the postgres web site. (The topic has come up a few
> > times on the
> > list)
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-general/1999-11/msg00227.html
> >
> > So all those db guys who write SQL in their sleep enjoy !!!!
> >
> > Michael Hunt
> >
> > Personally I'd rather go and play with some new fancy
> > router/switch but that
> > is just me.
> >
> >
>
>