RE: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR::DB advocacy
| From: | Tony Bibbs | Date: | Thu, 06 Feb 2003 22:08:52 +0000 |
| Subject: | RE: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR::DB advocacy | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-13031@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Those number are easier to digest! Thanks Lukas...
--Tony
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Lukas Smith wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tony Bibbs [mailto:tony@tonybibbs.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 10:48 PM
> > To: PEAR Development
> > Subject: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR::DB advocacy
> >
> > To be clear, I'm a PEAR::DB advocate. However, a project I am working
> on
> > is going to use PEAR::DB and a user blasted me wtih this tidbit from
> the
> > ADODB website regarding performance. My question is how do I address
> this
> > from the advocates standpoint? Assuming the numbers are based on a
> valid
> > benchmark, are there plans to review PEAR::DB for optimizations?
> >
> > Average Overhead
> > MySQL 1.14 -
> > dbx 1.37 20% (index only)
> > ADODB 1.45 27%
> > dbx 1.53 34% (index/assoc/info)
> > PhpLib 1.60 40%
> > MDB 1.75 54%
> > PEAR DB 2.87 152% (fetchInto)
> > PEAR DB 3.15 176% (fetchRow)
> > M'base 2.52 296% (numeric cols)
> > M'base 4.77 318% (assoc cols)
>
> Well here is a posting by Tomas Cox that will shed some light on the
> situation:
>
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&m=100793507904834&w=2
>
> The results seem pretty harsh though.
> Anyways, I hope that person was benchmarking for his specific needs and
> not some random situation. Another important point is if it has the
> features you need etc.
>
> Take Metabase for example:
> While it takes last place in this benchmark, it is none the less a prime
> choice if you need PHP3 support as well as a complete set of abstraction
> facilities and a large number of drivers.
>
> Regarding PEAR DB. A lot of the things that Tomas talked about in his
> post have been incorporated into MDB. But I doubt that MDB is really
> that much faster in normal use. Especially if you use the datatype
> abstraction (which is optional).
>
> Then there is another "benchmark" to consider. How long does it take to
> make your application compatible with another RDBMS. How long does it
> take to port the schema? If you use abstraction do so for a good reason,
> or use the native API's.
>
> Regards,
> Lukas
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Tony Bibbs | "I guess you have to remember that those who don't |
tony@tonybibbs.com | hunt or fish often see those of us who do as |
| harmlessly strange and sort of amusing. When you |
| think about it, that might be a fair assessment." |
| --Unknown |
------------------------------------------------------------------------|