On Friday, Oct 18, 2002, at 07:44 US/Pacific, Troy Simpson wrote: > But look at the second run. The second run and other runs to the > database were consisted. The jdbc:oracle:thin driver was always the > fastest followed by the jdbc:oracle:oci driver. The slowest was the > MXJDBC driver. This was consistant after the first run.
Interesting. And surprising. I really would have expected the OCI driver to be faster. > I did not test any stored procedures or anything more complex. I'm > assuming that the jdbc.oracle.thin driver is going to be limited in > some functionality. I believe - but have not confirmed this - that there can be problems with CLOB / BLOB data through the Thin Client. I know that one of our engineers was doing some CLOB-intensive work and had to use the OCI driver instead of the Thin Client for some reason. > From what I gather from various docs, the jdbc.oracle.thin driver was > designed mostly as a light weight driver for applets and may be > missing some functionality. Maybe someone could verify this for me. Hmm, I'm a little surprised that Oracle don't detail the differences between the drivers and why you'd use one over the other... Maybe they do but it's just really hard to find in the sprawling plains of OTN? :) In a separate reply, I'll include the installation notes from our engineers. "I can smell your brains!" -- Mittens the Kitten : http://www.matazone.co.uk/theotherside.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
