It's nothing more than M$ PR and doesn't answer my question at all.

>First here is an extract from Microsoft's definition of oledb:
>
>A strategic system-level programming interface to data across the organization. OLE DB
>is an open specification designed to build on the success of ODBC by providing an open
>standard for accessing all kinds of data.
>
>OLEBD is newer and was developed to address some of the known problems with ODBC
>
>Here are some:
>ODBC drivers:
>1. are tightly bound to the SQL language / relational data
>2. have no standard leveling of functionality (i.e. drivers do not support standard levels of functionality)
>3. each flavor of SQL makes each driver unique undermining the universal intent of the API
>4. difficult to deploy due since many software pieces must be synchronized (server, driver, OS, etc)
>
>OLE DB is the answer to all these and offers other benefits that odbc doesn't.
>
>I am not a "because Microsoft said so" person, but what sort of speed gain are we talking about here Sergey? Is it worth sacrificing the flexibilty of oledb?
>
>Now to answer your question: I don't know.
>But even if you consider dsn-less connection odbc code has to have extra connectivity naunces and will involve more code than oledb. Looking at the whole solution over time any speed gains may be lost due to the 'extra' work involved with odbc.
>
>
>
>
>>What resources OLE DB manages better than ODBC?
>>