-----Original Message----- From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Paolo Pisati Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:55 PM To: General Discussion of SQLite Database Subject: Re: [sqlite] Hundreds of thousands of INSERTs
Griggs, Donald wrote: > If you really have to have even more performance, you could cache > inserts in RAM and wrap multiple INSERTS with a single transaction > when you have a certain number cached (or if a max delay is reached). > shouldn't varying the transaction size have the same effect? moving from 4096 to 8192 didn't show any improvement. ================================================= Paolo, My apologies -- you wrote in your original post: "one INSERT per row." Which I mis-remembered as "One INSERT per TRANSACTION." If you're already inserting 4096 rows per transaction -- then, yes, you're right -- I wouldn't be surprized that even larger groupings don't improve performance. If you think you may be disk-bound rather than CPU-bound, I don't know if going to a 15,000 RPM disk would be a possibility -- assuming you're on something slower now -- and that the cost could be justified. Donald _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
