perl@1983:
The reason I prefer the DBI/DBD route is that you use the same interface for *any* database. Here at $work, I work with Oracle, MSSQL, SQLite and occasionally PostgreSQL. When I have to interact with a particular database, I don't have to ask myself questions like:
- OK, how do I read a result set with *this* database?
- Can I use placeholders in my query? If so, how do I do that?
- What data structure get I get my results in?
Since DBI provides a standardized interface, I can be immediately productive when I switch back to a database I use rarely, without having to reacquaint myself with a module I haven't used in a year.
Sure, there are some occasional differences between the databases, but DBI / DBD lets me ignore most of them. Occasionally, I'll need a special database-specific feature and have to read DBD::Oracle or some such. But better that than having to read documentation on all the everyday operations for selecting, inserting, updating and deleting.
That's my 1/50 of a dollar.
...roboticus
When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like your thumb.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Thank you for the detailed reply roboticus. It is helpful.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
Thanks Michael. My team is working on migrating our scripts from DBlib (to either CTlib or DBD::Sybase). However, we are still discussing the pros and cons of CTlib vs DBD::Sybase. One of the things we noticed was the bcp in CTlib is much much faster as compared to the "Experimental Utility" in DBD::Sybase. Can you please help to clarify whether the "Experimental Bulk Load" utility in DBD::Sybase is doing inserts underlyingly and therefore slower?
Thanks much.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |