Re^2: Do I need a database model?

in reply to Re: Do I need a database model?
in thread Do I need a database model?

Yes, tests so far show that transaction performance is a challenge. I've been thinking about sticking with raw sql too.

Comment on Re^2: Do I need a database model?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Do I need a database model? by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Mar 11, 2014 at 05:10 UTC
Raw SQL with properly bound columns and prepared statements or DB procedures will always win the speed race, often hugely, but I want to point out that DBIC got MUCH faster recently. Fast enough to beat Rose::DB, the previous ORM speed king, on certain operations; and you have tools like DBIx::Class::ResultSet::HashRef to skip the most expensive part of DBIC (objectification of records). DBIC also has some cache control built-in so depending on the use case it could conceivably be faster than raw SQL unless you go to the trouble of handling caching yourself. And that underscores the final case for DBIC: it does nearly everything and it does it before you realize you were going to need it.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Do I need a database model?
by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Mar 11, 2014 at 05:10 UTC

Raw SQL with properly bound columns and prepared statements or DB procedures will always win the speed race, often hugely, but I want to point out that DBIC got MUCH faster recently. Fast enough to beat Rose::DB, the previous ORM speed king, on certain operations; and you have tools like DBIx::Class::ResultSet::HashRef to skip the most expensive part of DBIC (objectification of records). DBIC also has some cache control built-in so depending on the use case it could conceivably be faster than raw SQL unless you go to the trouble of handling caching yourself. And that underscores the final case for DBIC: it does nearly everything and it does it before you realize you were going to need it.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom