Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote on 02/18/2010 03:31:19 PM: > Awesome work! We've just been assuming/hoping it would be fast enough, > and would resolve any problems "later". It is good to see we're in the > right ballpark. > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 13:21, Philip Martin <philip. > mar...@wandisco.com> wrote: > > How fast are sqlite queries be compared to the old-wc entry caching? > > Operations like update benefit from faster locking, but in old-wc > > status does no locking at all. Also the multiple entries files give > > the data a tree-like organisation that is not modelled quite so well > > by an SQL table. Is sqlite going to be at least as fast as old-wc at > > running status when the OS cache is hot? I've been vaguely assumming > > that it would be OK but this week I felt it was time to investigate. > > What would we do in 3 months time if wc-ng turns out to be an order of > > magnitude slower than old-wc? > >...
What platform were these test executed on? We need to make sure windows platforms are just as zippy. Kevin R.
