On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:07 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2008-04-18 18:01, Rick Morrison wrote: > >> Reading this thread, I keep wondering why you are trying to put > >> all that connection setup configuration into the connection string... > >> > >> Such setting are normally configured in the odbc.ini file and then > >> you just reference data source name in the connection string. > >> > >> That's the standard way of using ODBC and the reason why you > >> have ODBC managers with nice setup GUIs. A DSN-less setup > >> like the one created by SA bypasses the ODBC manager > >> configuration. > >> > > > > Only via an option: DSN connections have been supported for some time via > > the 'dsn' keyword, the OP seems to either not want that or can't get it to > > work. > > I know, but this should be the default rather than an option. > > > >> SA should really adapt to the ODBC standard of using data source > >> names, as it moves the connection configuration where it should be: > >> Into the scope of the ODBC manager you are using to configure your > >> ODBC drivers. > > > > > > SA already has a de-facto standard using a db-uri scheme that works with > > non-ODBC datasources as well. It makes sense for ODBC compliant SA database > > drivers to conform to that form, not to just displace it and force a > > config-file style of setup. > > The DSN style setup fits in nicely with the URI scheme... just use > the host part of the URI as data source name - after all, the > ODBC manager will "connect" to the data source and not the > database itself. > > Setting up an ODBC driver via the existing GUI tools is a lot > easier and less error prone than trying to figure out all > the different options and trying to put them into your > connection string. The direct approach should really only > be the last resort for very special cases.
Well, Based on : http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/webtech/070399-1.shtml "These tests showed that DSN-less connections were slightly faster than System DSN connections. The increase in performance was nothing monumental; the greatest performance boost was a mere 13% faster with 64 concurrent requests. For one, two, or four concurrent requests, there was virtually no performance improvement. In fact, no noticeable improvement is seen in a DSN-less connection over a System DSN until there are 10 or more concurrent connections." Also, I don't know how things work in hosted environments but if they charge for setting up system dsn then that might be another reason to use dsn-less connection. Also porting an application that that uses dsn-less connection is easier then porting an application that requires system dsn to be setup. Lucas --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
