I used SQL Server 2005 for 18 months for a rails application. I recall having to use both freetds and unixodbc to get the connection to work. I'm a little hazy on this, but I think one is a higher level communication protocol, and one is a lower level communication protocol. Google the rest if it helps
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:08 PM, rhossi <felipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > We are developing a solution for a client. Today he is using ASP.NET > with SQL Server 2008 and wanna use SQL Server 2008 as database for the > Rails application as well. > > So, they were asking us why Active Record uses unixODBC to communicate > with SQL Server instead of using only freeTDS - they were concerned > about performance problems. > > We googled the subject a little bit, and we weren't able to find any > Ruby solution that uses solely freeTDS. They all used unixODBC in some > sort of way. > > Questions: > > 1) Why the freeTDS solutions out there always uses unixODBC in some > sort of way? > 2) Is it possible to communicate with SQL Server using only freeTDS? > 3) Will we gain any performance using only freeTDS instead of freeTDS > + unixODBC > > Thanks in advance. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-t...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-t...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
