[Catalyst] Alternatives to DBIx?

Marcello Romani mromani at ottotecnica.com
Tue Apr 20 08:50:50 GMT 2010

Lyle ha scritto:
> Kiffin Gish wrote:
>> I'd say that rather than spending time studying SQL::DB, which I found
>> complicated and hard to tackle, you might as well invest the same time
>> and energy anyway in figuring out DBIx::Class.
> TBH if I really found the need for the DB to match up to objects, then 
> I'd use an Object Database, not a Relational one. The only real argument 
> for using a relational one instead, in that situation, is the 
> performance benefits. When you want top performance from a relational 
> database, you won't be using an ORM anyway.

But the question is: do you need raw dbi performance all over the place 
? Just as you can write some critical functions in assembly and wrap 
them up in a C function or C++ class method, you can use an ORM to speed 
up development and have easier code maintenance, and use dbi+raw sql 
where you find a performance bottleneck.

Also, as someone has mentioned earlier in this thread, DBIC requires a 
well-designed db schema, so in some way it prevents bad design decisions 
at the "raw-sql" level, thus helping to acheive good performance right 
from the start.

> Lyle
> _______________________________________________
> List: Catalyst at lists.scsys.co.uk
> Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
> Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/
> Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/

Just my 2 (euro) cents.

Marcello Romani

More information about the Catalyst mailing list