sqlite3 vs. sqlite-d

[Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d]

On Wed, 2017-06-07 at 20:40 +0000, Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 at 20:12:22 UTC, cym13 wrote:
> 
> > It should be noted that the benchmark isn't fair, it favours 
> > the sqlite3 implementation as parsing and preparing the 
> > statement isn't measured. And yes, it's still faster which is 
> > cool ^^
> > 
> 
> Yes the benchmark is biased slightly in favor of sqlite3 C 
> implementation.
> But sqlite-d does not have the ability to parse sql to the point 
> where it could implement that functionality.
> Also sqlite-d is inefficient in quite a few places and is slowed 
> down by auto-decoding as I discovered just now.

But what is D's equivalent to Python's SQLAlchemy? C++ now has sqlpp11.

Anyone doing SQL code manipulation with strings in another language is
doing it wrong. Internal DSLs FTW.

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder at ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel at winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20170608/4e9d2c7d/attachment.sig>