Subject | Re: [Firebird-Java] Another set of Class 2 Driver modification files. These ones are pretty much complete and stable(-: |
---|---|
Author | Mark O'Donohue |
Post date | 2003-03-05T21:17:04Z |
Hi
Ryan Baldwin wrote:
My feeling is that with Classic and direct file open, it should be speed.
Packaging variables up and writing them over a socket connection takes
some time, even if both the server and client are on the same box.
Firebird classic can open a database file directly, so if you have a
java application, and a type 2 driver, the JNI translation is the only
overhead.
I can also see that being an advantage for embedded java applications,
you dont need to have a registered server listening on port 3050.
For a web server talking to a local database that is often all that is
needed.
So it will be interesting to see if there is any speed advantage.
Cheers
Mark
Ryan Baldwin wrote:
>Hi,driver -
>
>Sorry to reply to my own post but regarding advantages of a type 2
>(since i saw my name here :-)
>Mark O'Donohue wrote a while back
>
>>Unfortunately Im more linux inclined, I hope someone else can help - but
>>classic with type2 jdbc driver is I think a *VERY* good idea.
>>
>>
>
>I guess there is a good reason why a type2 driver would be good with CS -
>but I dont know what it is - so there are probarbly further advantages and
>disadvatages that i'm not aware of.
>
>
My feeling is that with Classic and direct file open, it should be speed.
Packaging variables up and writing them over a socket connection takes
some time, even if both the server and client are on the same box.
Firebird classic can open a database file directly, so if you have a
java application, and a type 2 driver, the JNI translation is the only
overhead.
I can also see that being an advantage for embedded java applications,
you dont need to have a registered server listening on port 3050.
For a web server talking to a local database that is often all that is
needed.
So it will be interesting to see if there is any speed advantage.
Cheers
Mark