Thread: Re: FUD!! ODBC will not be supported by Microsoft in the future
Yes, can you please be more specific, what problems have you had with
it? We are in the process of moving from Oracle on Sun to Postgres on
Linux with front end windows machines. What problems have you had with
the Postgres ODBC drivers on Windows?
-----Original Message-----
From: John K. Herreshoff [mailto:jkherr@centurytel.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:22 AM
To: pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [ODBC] FUD!! ODBC will not be supported by Microsoft in the
future
Relaxin wrote:
<snip>
>
> Plus, Postgresql's ODBC has some serious problems, I wouldn't trust in
> production on Windows anyhow. :)
>
> Thanks
That's a red herring. Can you be more specific? I've not seen trouble
with
PG ODBC, but I'm not beating on it yet with any great force...
John.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
* Steve Lutz (slutz@alacritude.com) wrote:
> Yes, can you please be more specific, what problems have you had with
> it? We are in the process of moving from Oracle on Sun to Postgres on
> Linux with front end windows machines. What problems have you had with
> the Postgres ODBC drivers on Windows?
Try opening a big table.
Stephen
Attachment
For the record: the PostgreSQL ODBC driver works well and reliably for us. From my reading of the pgsql-odbc list, almost all of the problems I have seen posted turn out to be user problems, not driver problems. And for the latter, Hiroshi usually gets a fix out pretty quickly. --- Steve Lutz <slutz@alacritude.com> wrote: > Yes, can you please be more specific, what problems > have you had with > it? We are in the process of moving from Oracle on > Sun to Postgres on > Linux with front end windows machines. What problems > have you had with > the Postgres ODBC drivers on Windows? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John K. Herreshoff > [mailto:jkherr@centurytel.net] > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:22 AM > To: pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [ODBC] FUD!! ODBC will not be supported > by Microsoft in the > future > > > Relaxin wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Plus, Postgresql's ODBC has some serious problems, > I wouldn't trust in > > production on Windows anyhow. :) > > > > Thanks > > That's a red herring. Can you be more specific? > I've not seen trouble > with > PG ODBC, but I'm not beating on it yet with any > great force... > > John. > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
> * Steve Lutz (slutz@alacritude.com) wrote: >> Yes, can you please be more specific, what problems have you had with >> it? We are in the process of moving from Oracle on Sun to Postgres on >> Linux with front end windows machines. What problems have you had with >> the Postgres ODBC drivers on Windows? > > Try opening a big table. That is not a PostgreSQL ODBC issue. There is a setting, I forget the name, that enables a cursor in the query. On a side not, you will be hard pressed to find a commercial ODBC application, i.e. Access, that can handle large tables. For what its worth, I use the PGODBC driver to create an index of tables with Millions of rows.
* markw@mohawksoft.com (markw@mohawksoft.com) wrote:
> > * Steve Lutz (slutz@alacritude.com) wrote:
> >> Yes, can you please be more specific, what problems have you had with
> >> it? We are in the process of moving from Oracle on Sun to Postgres on
> >> Linux with front end windows machines. What problems have you had with
> >> the Postgres ODBC drivers on Windows?
> >
> > Try opening a big table.
>
> That is not a PostgreSQL ODBC issue. There is a setting, I forget the
> name, that enables a cursor in the query.
It should be on by default then, and I didn't see that option when I was
looking, can you tell me where it is?
> On a side not, you will be hard pressed to find a commercial ODBC
> application, i.e. Access, that can handle large tables.
Uh, Access and Oracle ODBC works just fine on the same table that
Postgres ODBC grinds the machine to a halt on.
> For what its worth, I use the PGODBC driver to create an index of tables
> with Millions of rows.
I tried using the postgres ODBC driver to open a table with a couple
million rows. It ran the client machine out of memory. Same table w/
the Oracle ODBC driver worked just fine.
Stephen
Attachment
Stephen Frost wrote: > * markw@mohawksoft.com (markw@mohawksoft.com) wrote: >>That is not a PostgreSQL ODBC issue. There is a setting, I forget the >>name, that enables a cursor in the query. > > It should be on by default then, and I didn't see that option when I was > looking, can you tell me where it is? Nothin' like RTFM: http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/psqlodbc/genpage.php?doc-config >>On a side not, you will be hard pressed to find a commercial ODBC >>application, i.e. Access, that can handle large tables. > > Uh, Access and Oracle ODBC works just fine on the same table that > Postgres ODBC grinds the machine to a halt on. Use Declare/Fetch >>For what its worth, I use the PGODBC driver to create an index of tables >>with Millions of rows. > > I tried using the postgres ODBC driver to open a table with a couple > million rows. It ran the client machine out of memory. Same table w/ > the Oracle ODBC driver worked just fine. Use Declare/Fetch HTH, Mike Mascari mascarm@mascari.com
On Wednesday 01 October 2003 12:58, Stephen Frost wrote: > * markw@mohawksoft.com (markw@mohawksoft.com) wrote: > > I tried using the postgres ODBC driver to open a table with a couple > million rows. It ran the client machine out of memory. Same table w/ > the Oracle ODBC driver worked just fine. This is probably less to do with ODBC and more with PG's approach to result sets. With PG, if you ask for 10 million rows it will pass all of them to the client in one go. Other systems tend to act as though you asked for a cursor and return rows as you fetch them. In PG, if you want a cursor, you ask for a cursor. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
Stephen can you please be more specific. How big of a table? What type of problem did you have opening a big table. I use Postgres in a production enivornment with about 2 to 3 million row (for all tables). This is big to some and small to others. I have had no problems "opening" tables in psql, php, MSAcess, with a row count well over 100,000 rows. If you have had a problem that is reproducible, then you should let the list know so the problem can be fixed. For the others on the list, I have not moved from Oracle to Postgres but from Access to Postgres. Most of the problems with that transition deal with name issues (Access allows many things in the naming of tables and fields) and Access thinking it is smarter than me when I give it a query to run. (I still use Access as a front end, and am slowly porting it to php.) I hope this helps others on the list, Michael Calabrese Bike Friday Stephen Frost wrote: >* Steve Lutz (slutz@alacritude.com) wrote: > > >>Yes, can you please be more specific, what problems have you had with >>it? We are in the process of moving from Oracle on Sun to Postgres on >>Linux with front end windows machines. What problems have you had with >>the Postgres ODBC drivers on Windows? >> >> > >Try opening a big table. > > Stephen > >
* Mike Mascari (mascarm@mascari.com) wrote: > http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/psqlodbc/genpage.php?doc-config I saw that, and it said it was on by default so I figured it must be something else. Apparently it's *not* actually on by default. I turned it on and I'll play around with that and see if it helps. Stephen
Attachment
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when slutz@alacritude.com ("Steve Lutz") would write:
> Yes, can you please be more specific, what problems have you had with
> it? We are in the process of moving from Oracle on Sun to Postgres on
> Linux with front end windows machines. What problems have you had with
> the Postgres ODBC drivers on Windows?
The issue isn't with present condition of ODBC drivers.
It is that "Windows 2004," which will presumably start getting forced
onto your desktop machines next year, may no longer support ODBC in
favor of [Fill In New DB Access System Here].
So long as you can get licenses to older MSFT software, it would not
be a big issue. If diminishment of ODBC support led to some sort of
hue and cry, Microsoft might relent, although it would be unremarkable
for that to involve them doing some work to break access to "foreign"
databases, where possible.
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "ntlug.org")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/lsf.html
(eq? 'truth 'beauty) ; to avoid unassigned-var error, since compiled code
; will pick up previous value to var set!-ed,
; the unassigned object.
-- from BBN-CL's cl-parser.scm
Stephen Frost wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. > * Mike Mascari (mascarm@mascari.com) wrote: > > http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/psqlodbc/genpage.php?doc-config > > I saw that, and it said it was on by default so I figured it must be > something else. Apparently it's *not* actually on by default. I > turned it on and I'll play around with that and see if it helps. I have updated this web page to show that "Use Declare/Fetch" is _not_ on by default. Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
>> Yes, can you please be more specific, what problems have you had with
>> it? We are in the process of moving from Oracle on Sun to Postgres on
>> Linux with front end windows machines. What problems have you had with
>> the Postgres ODBC drivers on Windows?
>
> The issue isn't with present condition of ODBC drivers.
>
> It is that "Windows 2004," which will presumably start getting forced
> onto your desktop machines next year, may no longer support ODBC in
> favor of [Fill In New DB Access System Here].
>
> So long as you can get licenses to older MSFT software, it would not
> be a big issue. If diminishment of ODBC support led to some sort of
> hue and cry, Microsoft might relent, although it would be unremarkable
> for that to involve them doing some work to break access to "foreign"
> databases, where possible.
Ah, I wouldn't be worried about this. Microsoft tried to kill Java
(and they're still trying to kill it today), but just look at how popular
it is now -- looks like Microsoft's efforts backfired, and I suspect the
same will be true with ODBC.
If ODBC support is in fact eliminated by Microsoft, however, the rest
of the world will still be able to move on to JDBC if some open source
alternative doesn't save the day.
--
Randolf Richardson - rr@8x.ca
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Please do not eMail me directly when responding
to my postings in the newsgroups.