Re: is IPC really faster than TCPIP?

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:33:26 -0500, Wolfson Larry - lwolfs <lawrence.wolfson_at_acxiom.com> wrote:
> Barr, Stephen [Stephen.Barr_at_bskyb.com]
>
> Stephen,
> One of Cary's msgs said IPC and the other mentioned BEQueath. If
> you can use BEQ it's going to be a hair faster because you don't have to go
> through the listener. But, either way, if you're processing a row at a time
> you'll be much faster with BEQ or IPC.
> Should be a no brainer. Why put traffic on your network if you
> don't have to?
> The other people on the network may appreciate it too.

> Larry

Larry,

one could use TCP on the loopback address (127.0.0.1) and not hit the network. I usually include that as the first line in an address descriptor on a server.

just being a stickler.

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
> [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]On Behalf Of Barr, Stephen
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 7:48 AM
> To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> Subject: RE: is IPC really faster than TCPIP?
>
> I'd be really interested in hearing the opinions of others on this - we are
> thinking of implementing IPC on the recommendations of Informatica (our ETL
> tool). We have a lot of network traffic due to the row-at-a-time processing
> in informatica.
>
> Informatica and Oracle are both on the same box.

---
To unsubscribe - mailto:oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org&subject=unsubscribe 
To read recent messages - http://freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/09-2004