Difference between ODBC and Netezza engine
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I am loading SAS tables into Netezza and I am using a libname with the ODBC connection to connect to netezza like this:
libname myConnection odbc noprompt="server=xxxx; DRIVER=NetezzaSQL; port=xxxx;database=xxxx; username=xxxx;password=xxxx;";
I do it with SAS/Access Interface to ODBC because I do not have SAS/Access Interface to Netezza.
Are there any disadvantages of using ODBC engine over the Netezza engine?
sas odbc netezza
asked Nov 9 at 14:56
jim
81113
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I am loading SAS tables into Netezza and I am using a libname with the ODBC connection to connect to netezza like this:
libname myConnection odbc noprompt="server=xxxx; DRIVER=NetezzaSQL; port=xxxx;database=xxxx; username=xxxx;password=xxxx;";
I do it with SAS/Access Interface to ODBC because I do not have SAS/Access Interface to Netezza.
Are there any disadvantages of using ODBC engine over the Netezza engine?
sas odbc netezza
asked Nov 9 at 14:56
jim
81113
1
this is for oracle but will make sense for netezza too. support.sas.com/kb/31/648.html. there might be slight differences about which I will not be too oncerned
– Kiran
Nov 9 at 15:04
@Kiran it states the types of things you can do such as using the bulkload option, but this option already exists with SAS/ACCESS interface to ODBC
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:07
it is just as example, but i mean to say there may be minor differences about which you may not be too worried
– Kiran
Nov 9 at 15:09
@Kiran in this article: ibmbigdatahub.com/blog/… where he talks about ODBC it states why SAS/ACCESS to Netezza would be best. Technically all I want to do is load data into Netezza. So would Netezza engine instead of ODBC cause for better performance in loading big data?
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:16
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I am loading SAS tables into Netezza and I am using a libname with the ODBC connection to connect to netezza like this:
libname myConnection odbc noprompt="server=xxxx; DRIVER=NetezzaSQL; port=xxxx;database=xxxx; username=xxxx;password=xxxx;";
I do it with SAS/Access Interface to ODBC because I do not have SAS/Access Interface to Netezza.
Are there any disadvantages of using ODBC engine over the Netezza engine?
sas odbc netezza
asked Nov 9 at 14:56
jim
81113
I am loading SAS tables into Netezza and I am using a libname with the ODBC connection to connect to netezza like this:
libname myConnection odbc noprompt="server=xxxx; DRIVER=NetezzaSQL; port=xxxx;database=xxxx; username=xxxx;password=xxxx;";
I do it with SAS/Access Interface to ODBC because I do not have SAS/Access Interface to Netezza.
Are there any disadvantages of using ODBC engine over the Netezza engine?
sas odbc netezza
sas odbc netezza
asked Nov 9 at 14:56
jim
81113
asked Nov 9 at 14:56
jim
81113
asked Nov 9 at 14:56
jim
81113
asked Nov 9 at 14:56
jim
81113
asked Nov 9 at 14:56
jim
81113
81113
1
this is for oracle but will make sense for netezza too. support.sas.com/kb/31/648.html. there might be slight differences about which I will not be too oncerned
– Kiran
Nov 9 at 15:04
@Kiran it states the types of things you can do such as using the bulkload option, but this option already exists with SAS/ACCESS interface to ODBC
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:07
it is just as example, but i mean to say there may be minor differences about which you may not be too worried
– Kiran
Nov 9 at 15:09
@Kiran in this article: ibmbigdatahub.com/blog/… where he talks about ODBC it states why SAS/ACCESS to Netezza would be best. Technically all I want to do is load data into Netezza. So would Netezza engine instead of ODBC cause for better performance in loading big data?
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:16
add a comment |
1
this is for oracle but will make sense for netezza too. support.sas.com/kb/31/648.html. there might be slight differences about which I will not be too oncerned
– Kiran
Nov 9 at 15:04
@Kiran it states the types of things you can do such as using the bulkload option, but this option already exists with SAS/ACCESS interface to ODBC
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:07
it is just as example, but i mean to say there may be minor differences about which you may not be too worried
– Kiran
Nov 9 at 15:09
@Kiran in this article: ibmbigdatahub.com/blog/… where he talks about ODBC it states why SAS/ACCESS to Netezza would be best. Technically all I want to do is load data into Netezza. So would Netezza engine instead of ODBC cause for better performance in loading big data?
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:16
1
1
this is for oracle but will make sense for netezza too. support.sas.com/kb/31/648.html. there might be slight differences about which I will not be too oncerned
– Kiran
Nov 9 at 15:04
this is for oracle but will make sense for netezza too. support.sas.com/kb/31/648.html. there might be slight differences about which I will not be too oncerned
– Kiran
Nov 9 at 15:04
@Kiran it states the types of things you can do such as using the bulkload option, but this option already exists with SAS/ACCESS interface to ODBC
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:07
@Kiran it states the types of things you can do such as using the bulkload option, but this option already exists with SAS/ACCESS interface to ODBC
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:07
it is just as example, but i mean to say there may be minor differences about which you may not be too worried
– Kiran
Nov 9 at 15:09
it is just as example, but i mean to say there may be minor differences about which you may not be too worried
– Kiran
Nov 9 at 15:09
@Kiran in this article: ibmbigdatahub.com/blog/… where he talks about ODBC it states why SAS/ACCESS to Netezza would be best. Technically all I want to do is load data into Netezza. So would Netezza engine instead of ODBC cause for better performance in loading big data?
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:16
@Kiran in this article: ibmbigdatahub.com/blog/… where he talks about ODBC it states why SAS/ACCESS to Netezza would be best. Technically all I want to do is load data into Netezza. So would Netezza engine instead of ODBC cause for better performance in loading big data?
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:16
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
it depends.
see the below link for the paper on SAS connections in relation to netezza
sas.com/partners/directory/ibm/NetezzaDWAppliances-withSAS.pdf
In this paper, it describes SAS/Access for ODBC is also available, but provides lower performance as it does not ‘push down’ as much of the SAS code or PROC SQL as SQL to Netezza. SAS/Access for ODBC does not support SAS 9.3 in-database processing.
when you are writing an implicit pass through or a datastep the code is not sent to database for processing in 9.3 and about 9.4 i do not have idea.
So performance will be impacted when you are using implicit pass through and looking for in-database processing
If you are just moving your data from SAS to Netezza, impact may not be significant but I have not tested both of them separately so I cannot tell for sure
answered Nov 9 at 15:17
Kiran
2,4073819
thanks for this info. The tables we are working with are 100 of millions of rows. So it might be worth it to test both ODBC and NETEZZA for performance, which is what I'll try to do. I appreciate the help!
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:37
In my experience the push-down capabilities of the sas engine out-of-the-box is not great. It constantly opens extra connections to the database (one connection only is key to push-down) and libnames under different schemas are not always using the same connection, even if you make them all ‘global’.
– Lars G Olsen
Nov 10 at 8:37
In short: it is almost the same amount of work to write pass through sql yourself and only use the odbc connect. Only real difference is if you use a LOT of sas formats. Please note that the Netezza connect IS using odbc under the covers, only difference when push comes is push-down.
– Lars G Olsen
Nov 10 at 8:38
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53228123%2fdifference-between-odbc-and-netezza-engine%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
it depends.
see the below link for the paper on SAS connections in relation to netezza
sas.com/partners/directory/ibm/NetezzaDWAppliances-withSAS.pdf
In this paper, it describes SAS/Access for ODBC is also available, but provides lower performance as it does not ‘push down’ as much of the SAS code or PROC SQL as SQL to Netezza. SAS/Access for ODBC does not support SAS 9.3 in-database processing.
when you are writing an implicit pass through or a datastep the code is not sent to database for processing in 9.3 and about 9.4 i do not have idea.
So performance will be impacted when you are using implicit pass through and looking for in-database processing
If you are just moving your data from SAS to Netezza, impact may not be significant but I have not tested both of them separately so I cannot tell for sure
answered Nov 9 at 15:17
Kiran
2,4073819
thanks for this info. The tables we are working with are 100 of millions of rows. So it might be worth it to test both ODBC and NETEZZA for performance, which is what I'll try to do. I appreciate the help!
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:37
In my experience the push-down capabilities of the sas engine out-of-the-box is not great. It constantly opens extra connections to the database (one connection only is key to push-down) and libnames under different schemas are not always using the same connection, even if you make them all ‘global’.
– Lars G Olsen
Nov 10 at 8:37
In short: it is almost the same amount of work to write pass through sql yourself and only use the odbc connect. Only real difference is if you use a LOT of sas formats. Please note that the Netezza connect IS using odbc under the covers, only difference when push comes is push-down.
– Lars G Olsen
Nov 10 at 8:38
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
it depends.
see the below link for the paper on SAS connections in relation to netezza
sas.com/partners/directory/ibm/NetezzaDWAppliances-withSAS.pdf
In this paper, it describes SAS/Access for ODBC is also available, but provides lower performance as it does not ‘push down’ as much of the SAS code or PROC SQL as SQL to Netezza. SAS/Access for ODBC does not support SAS 9.3 in-database processing.
when you are writing an implicit pass through or a datastep the code is not sent to database for processing in 9.3 and about 9.4 i do not have idea.
So performance will be impacted when you are using implicit pass through and looking for in-database processing
If you are just moving your data from SAS to Netezza, impact may not be significant but I have not tested both of them separately so I cannot tell for sure
answered Nov 9 at 15:17
Kiran
2,4073819
thanks for this info. The tables we are working with are 100 of millions of rows. So it might be worth it to test both ODBC and NETEZZA for performance, which is what I'll try to do. I appreciate the help!
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:37
In my experience the push-down capabilities of the sas engine out-of-the-box is not great. It constantly opens extra connections to the database (one connection only is key to push-down) and libnames under different schemas are not always using the same connection, even if you make them all ‘global’.
– Lars G Olsen
Nov 10 at 8:37
In short: it is almost the same amount of work to write pass through sql yourself and only use the odbc connect. Only real difference is if you use a LOT of sas formats. Please note that the Netezza connect IS using odbc under the covers, only difference when push comes is push-down.
– Lars G Olsen
Nov 10 at 8:38
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
it depends.
see the below link for the paper on SAS connections in relation to netezza
sas.com/partners/directory/ibm/NetezzaDWAppliances-withSAS.pdf
In this paper, it describes SAS/Access for ODBC is also available, but provides lower performance as it does not ‘push down’ as much of the SAS code or PROC SQL as SQL to Netezza. SAS/Access for ODBC does not support SAS 9.3 in-database processing.
when you are writing an implicit pass through or a datastep the code is not sent to database for processing in 9.3 and about 9.4 i do not have idea.
So performance will be impacted when you are using implicit pass through and looking for in-database processing
If you are just moving your data from SAS to Netezza, impact may not be significant but I have not tested both of them separately so I cannot tell for sure
answered Nov 9 at 15:17
Kiran
2,4073819
it depends.
see the below link for the paper on SAS connections in relation to netezza
sas.com/partners/directory/ibm/NetezzaDWAppliances-withSAS.pdf
In this paper, it describes SAS/Access for ODBC is also available, but provides lower performance as it does not ‘push down’ as much of the SAS code or PROC SQL as SQL to Netezza. SAS/Access for ODBC does not support SAS 9.3 in-database processing.
when you are writing an implicit pass through or a datastep the code is not sent to database for processing in 9.3 and about 9.4 i do not have idea.
So performance will be impacted when you are using implicit pass through and looking for in-database processing
If you are just moving your data from SAS to Netezza, impact may not be significant but I have not tested both of them separately so I cannot tell for sure
answered Nov 9 at 15:17
Kiran
2,4073819
edited Nov 9 at 15:25
answered Nov 9 at 15:17
Kiran
2,4073819
answered Nov 9 at 15:17
Kiran
2,4073819
answered Nov 9 at 15:17
Kiran
2,4073819
2,4073819
thanks for this info. The tables we are working with are 100 of millions of rows. So it might be worth it to test both ODBC and NETEZZA for performance, which is what I'll try to do. I appreciate the help!
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:37
In my experience the push-down capabilities of the sas engine out-of-the-box is not great. It constantly opens extra connections to the database (one connection only is key to push-down) and libnames under different schemas are not always using the same connection, even if you make them all ‘global’.
– Lars G Olsen
Nov 10 at 8:37
In short: it is almost the same amount of work to write pass through sql yourself and only use the odbc connect. Only real difference is if you use a LOT of sas formats. Please note that the Netezza connect IS using odbc under the covers, only difference when push comes is push-down.
– Lars G Olsen
Nov 10 at 8:38
add a comment |
thanks for this info. The tables we are working with are 100 of millions of rows. So it might be worth it to test both ODBC and NETEZZA for performance, which is what I'll try to do. I appreciate the help!
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:37
In my experience the push-down capabilities of the sas engine out-of-the-box is not great. It constantly opens extra connections to the database (one connection only is key to push-down) and libnames under different schemas are not always using the same connection, even if you make them all ‘global’.
– Lars G Olsen
Nov 10 at 8:37
In short: it is almost the same amount of work to write pass through sql yourself and only use the odbc connect. Only real difference is if you use a LOT of sas formats. Please note that the Netezza connect IS using odbc under the covers, only difference when push comes is push-down.
– Lars G Olsen
Nov 10 at 8:38
thanks for this info. The tables we are working with are 100 of millions of rows. So it might be worth it to test both ODBC and NETEZZA for performance, which is what I'll try to do. I appreciate the help!
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:37
thanks for this info. The tables we are working with are 100 of millions of rows. So it might be worth it to test both ODBC and NETEZZA for performance, which is what I'll try to do. I appreciate the help!
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:37
In my experience the push-down capabilities of the sas engine out-of-the-box is not great. It constantly opens extra connections to the database (one connection only is key to push-down) and libnames under different schemas are not always using the same connection, even if you make them all ‘global’.
– Lars G Olsen
Nov 10 at 8:37
In my experience the push-down capabilities of the sas engine out-of-the-box is not great. It constantly opens extra connections to the database (one connection only is key to push-down) and libnames under different schemas are not always using the same connection, even if you make them all ‘global’.
– Lars G Olsen
Nov 10 at 8:37
In short: it is almost the same amount of work to write pass through sql yourself and only use the odbc connect. Only real difference is if you use a LOT of sas formats. Please note that the Netezza connect IS using odbc under the covers, only difference when push comes is push-down.
– Lars G Olsen
Nov 10 at 8:38
In short: it is almost the same amount of work to write pass through sql yourself and only use the odbc connect. Only real difference is if you use a LOT of sas formats. Please note that the Netezza connect IS using odbc under the covers, only difference when push comes is push-down.
– Lars G Olsen
Nov 10 at 8:38
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53228123%2fdifference-between-odbc-and-netezza-engine%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
this is for oracle but will make sense for netezza too. support.sas.com/kb/31/648.html. there might be slight differences about which I will not be too oncerned
– Kiran
Nov 9 at 15:04
@Kiran it states the types of things you can do such as using the bulkload option, but this option already exists with SAS/ACCESS interface to ODBC
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:07
it is just as example, but i mean to say there may be minor differences about which you may not be too worried
– Kiran
Nov 9 at 15:09
@Kiran in this article: ibmbigdatahub.com/blog/… where he talks about ODBC it states why SAS/ACCESS to Netezza would be best. Technically all I want to do is load data into Netezza. So would Netezza engine instead of ODBC cause for better performance in loading big data?
– jim
Nov 9 at 15:16