-
From: sqlite-users
[mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Rob
Willett
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 11:42 AM
To: SQLite mailing list
Subject: Re: [sqlite] [EXTERNAL] Re: Very, very slow commits -
Possibly solved
Gunter,
Thanks for this. We have already started on
-
From: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] On
Behalf Of Rob Willett
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 11:42 AM
To: SQLite mailing list
Subject: Re: [sqlite] [EXTERNAL] Re: Very, very slow commits - Possibly solved
Gunter,
Thanks for this. We have already started on
On 31 Jul 2018, at 4:42pm, Rob Willett wrote:
> We have not checked that the order of columns in the index match the ORDER BY
> clauses. We never thought of that either,
That is going to make a big difference. Well done Gunter. Rob: don't forget
that once you have your indexes defined and
Gunter,
Thanks for this. We have already started on this as we realised that the
COLLATE NOCASE was irrelevant and actually slowed down integer queries.
What we have not done is reorder the table to match the index queries.
This had not occurred to us.
We think we have already created the
Based on the currently available information I woudl suggest the following
schema:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS "Disruptions" (
"id" INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL AUTOINCREMENT,
"version" integer NOT NULL,
"Disruption_id" INTEGER NOT NULL,
"status" integer NOT
5 matches
Mail list logo
