February 25, 2002 at 9:24 am
http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=708&a=23115,00.asp compares several databases. SQL Server lost big time due to JDBC driver problems. Does anyone know of a SQL Server/J2EE/JDBC combination that performs well?
February 25, 2002 at 9:31 am
I think JDBC has always been a big issue with SQL Server. I know they are beta testing a new set... don't know how it does on the performance side.
K. Brian Kelley
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/bkelley/
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
February 25, 2002 at 9:34 am
The authors tested MS's beta 1 and beta 2 JDBC versions and both had problems.
February 25, 2002 at 9:55 am
I know of no driver combination that works great with JDBC. The Microsoft one still being a beta could face drastic changes before it is all over. If not already check with Microsoft and try to get on the beta so you can prvide input and concerns directly to the developers.
"Don't roll your eyes at me. I will tape them in place." (Teacher on Boston Public)
February 25, 2002 at 11:37 am
quote:
To our surprise, database connectivity drivers proved to be the biggest source of problems.Of the five databases we tested, only Oracle9i and MySQL were able to run our Nile application as originally written for 8 hours without problems. DB2's JDBC driver doesn't support updatable result sets (a JDBC 2.0 feature), so we had to open all result sets using the CONCUR_READ_ONLY attribute (the only attribute the IBM driver would accept) and do updates using SQL update statements. With this change, we could run the application. IBM's driver then also made it through our 8-hour stability test.
The rest of the story... from the article. It's interesting that eWeek chose a technology that isn't exactly neutral to do benchmarking.
K. Brian Kelley
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/bkelley/
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply