phpgroupware-developers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SV: [phpGroupWare-developers] adodb_lite


From: Sigurd Nes
Subject: Re: SV: [phpGroupWare-developers] adodb_lite
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:08:10 +0000
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0b2 (X11/20070308)

Sigurd Nes wrote:
> 
>> From: Dave Hall address@hidden
>> Sent: 2007-03-19 14:29:59 CET
>> To: address@hidden
>> Subject: Re: SV: [phpGroupWare-developers] adodb_lite
>>
>> On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 14:16 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote:
>>>> From: Dave Hall address@hidden
>>>> Sent: 2007-03-19 14:01:22 CET
>>>> To: address@hidden
>>>> Subject: RE: [phpGroupWare-developers] adodb_lite
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 13:46 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote:
>>>>>> From: Dave Hall address@hidden
>>>>>> Sent: 2007-03-19 13:42:24 CET
>>>>>> To: address@hidden
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] adodb_lite
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 13:34 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote:
>>>>>>> "adodb_lite" claims to be 30% faster than "adodb".
>>>>>>> How about adding this as an optional db-abstraction ?
>>>>>> What is the difference in terms of functionality ?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a list of supported/unsupported functions:
>>>>> http://adodblite.sourceforge.net/functions.php
>>>> Thanks :)
>>>>
>>>> I had a quick look at the list.  There is a couple of functions
>>> which I
>>>> like in ADOdb - namely Get{Insert,Update}SQL and Prepare.
>>>>
>>>> How would the option be implemented?
>>>>
>>> suggestion:
>>> a selectable variable
>>> $GLOBALS['phpgw_info']['server']['db_abstraction'] in header.inc.php
>>>
>>> the adodb_lite would reside in its one catalog 
>> <snip />
>>
>> This ok, but we would have to make sure apps and the api aren't using
>> ADOdb calls.  In this case we might as well just use adodb_lite.  If
>> ADOdb is really a lot better, then we should stick with it, if not we
>> might as well switch.
>>
> 
> I agree - I don't know if adodb_lite is that much better - but this way we 
> would have "one foot on the ground" - without breaking anything while testing 
> the new library.
> 
I have done som testing on db-libraries - and the result is that
adodb_lite is only slightly faster (11%) than adodb. The
phplib-libraries from .16 performs 34% faster than adodb.
The test is performed on the same code/database (head) - just switched
from one db-library to the other.

The result are an average over three runs each (twice:computing 8 rights
and roles for 15 users at 48 locations):

Adodb           26.7 second
adodb_lite      23.8 second
Phplib          17.7 second

system:
Apache/2.2.4 (Unix) PHP/5.2.1
Postgresql 8.2
Mandriva cooker
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7400 @ 2.16GHz GNU/Linux
2 GB RAM

Regards

Sigurd




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]