I guess is this slowness is because of triggers (most probably) amplified
by extra indexes.
Lets discuss indexes first:
if most of queries uses BibleID as SARG along with Book & Chapter then
INX_Verses_BID
& INX_Verses_BID_B_C are not required. These are unnecessary adding
slowness to write activi
Am 23.02.2020 um 20:23 schrieb Richard Damon:
An amount of 140 tables in such a "BibleVersions.db" is not
uncommon and can be managed by SQLite in a good performance.
I'm not sure that form of division would be good. One basic rule of
database normalization is that you don't break-up data bas
On 2/23/20 3:06 PM, R.Smith wrote:
On 2020/02/23 21:23, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/23/20 8:31 AM, Olaf Schmidt wrote:
An amount of 140 tables in such a "BibleVersions.db" is not
uncommon and can be managed by SQLite in a good performance.
I'm not sure that form of division would be good. One
On 23 Feb 2020, at 7:23pm, Richard Damon wrote:
> I'm not sure that form of division would be good. One basic rule of database
> normalization is that you don't break-up data based on the value of one of
> the fields because you can't make the table to lookup data from be taken from
> a field
On 2020/02/23 21:23, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/23/20 8:31 AM, Olaf Schmidt wrote:
An amount of 140 tables in such a "BibleVersions.db" is not
uncommon and can be managed by SQLite in a good performance.
I'm not sure that form of division would be good. One basic rule of
database normalizati
Chip Beaulieu wrote:
> I also recently vacuumed the file. The issue really showed up after the FTS5
> was
> setup on the table. I suspect it’s got something to do with the triggers more
> than
> the indexes. I am definitely open to suggestions. I’ve not been able to find
> much
> info on the
On 2/23/20 8:31 AM, Olaf Schmidt wrote:
Am 21.02.2020 um 02:24 schrieb Chip Beaulieu:
I have a table with 4.5 million records with full text indexing. >
Reads are very fast, but deleting / inserting / updating
takes on average about 50 seconds per record. I often do batches of
30,000 deletes /
Am 21.02.2020 um 02:24 schrieb Chip Beaulieu:
I have a table with 4.5 million records with full text indexing.
> Reads are very fast, but deleting / inserting / updating
takes on average about 50 seconds per record.
I often do batches of 30,000 deletes / inserts at a time.
The last batch took
> On Feb 20, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Chip Beaulieu wrote:
>
> CREATE INDEX `INX_Verses_BID` ON `Verses` (`BibleID`)
> CREATE INDEX `INX_Verses_BID_B_C` ON `Verses` (`BibleID`,`Book`,`Chapter`)
> CREATE INDEX `INX_Verses_BI_B_C_V` ON `Verses`
> (`BibleID`,`Book`,`Chapter`,`VerseNumber`)
I believe the
On 21-2-2020 02:24, Chip Beaulieu wrote:
I have a table with 4.5 million records with full text indexing. Reads are very
fast, but deleting / inserting / updating takes on average about 50 seconds
per record. I often do batches of 30,000 deletes / inserts at a time. The last
batch took 10 ho
I have a table with 4.5 million records with full text indexing. Reads are very
fast, but deleting / inserting / updating takes on average about 50 seconds
per record. I often do batches of 30,000 deletes / inserts at a time. The last
batch took 10 hours to complete.
Here are the details:
Tab
Thanks Richard!
Changing the inner join to a cross join works as well in that case, though
is it enough to always disable the left join optimization ?
I have other variants of the query with different/more left joined
tables/subqueries, and varying filtering conditions, as the query
is dynamicall
On 6/26/18, Eric Grange wrote:
> I am experiencing a massive performance issue on a query with a left join
> in 3.24, now taking 40 seconds, whereas in 3.22 it was just a few
> milliseconds.
> The problematic query looks like
>
> select d.key_field, count(*) nb
> from low_volume_table
Also ran a few index to "force" the query plan, but with limited success:
- the "indexed by" clause does not result in the optimizer using the index
first, it just uses the indexes in the later steps of the query plan.
- using "not indexed" still results in the same table scan of
high_volume_table
Hi,
I am experiencing a massive performance issue on a query with a left join
in 3.24, now taking 40 seconds, whereas in 3.22 it was just a few
milliseconds.
The problematic query looks like
select d.key_field, count(*) nb
from low_volume_table b
join mid_volume_table c on c.key
I realized that the amount of memory used for the page cache is different.
And I found that is the root cause.
Sorry for my careless mistake.
Thank you.
--
Sent from: http://sqlite.1065341.n5.nabble.com/
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mail
Yup, absolutely you are right.
I just ran a new test using the same upper bound on the amount of memory
used for the page cache, then I found a reasonable result.
Thank you, Dan.
I did notice the cache_size change before but you made me realize it.
Thanks a lot.
--
Sent from: http://sqlite.106
On 02/01/2018 04:05 PM, Nick wrote:
I update sqlite in my Android mobile phone from 3.9.2 to 3.16.2.
And I find the default page_size in 3.9.2 is 1024 while in 3.16.2 is 4096
(changed since 3.12.0).
I think SQLITE_DEFAULT_PAGE_SIZE has great effect on the performance so I
use speedtest1.c to test
On 2/1/18, Nick wrote:
> I update sqlite in my Android mobile phone from 3.9.2 to 3.16.2.
>
> There are many test cases in speedtest1.c and case 270 is a DELETE case
> which is the most time-consuming one.
> There is a result. (different version + different page_size)
>
> 3.16.2+
Um, I am a OS application developer and we just upgraded the source code on
our developing engine.
I am sure I used the same compile-options.
SQLITE_SECURE_DELETE is not set.
--
Sent from: http://sqlite.1065341.n5.nabble.com/
___
sqlite-users mailing
Nick wrote:
> I update sqlite in my Android mobile phone from 3.9.2 to 3.16.2.
How? Your own copy, or the system one?
Did you use the same configuration? Especially SQLITE_SECURE_DELETE?
Regards,
Clemens
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mai
I update sqlite in my Android mobile phone from 3.9.2 to 3.16.2.
And I find the default page_size in 3.9.2 is 1024 while in 3.16.2 is 4096
(changed since 3.12.0).
I think SQLITE_DEFAULT_PAGE_SIZE has great effect on the performance so I
use speedtest1.c to test it.
There are many test cases in spe
On 10/17/17, advancenOO wrote:
> In order to profile sqlite 3.9.2 and sqlite 3.16.2, I run speedtest1.c on my
> mobile phone.
> It is weird to find that 3.9.2 is better than 3.16.2, especially in the
> following case:
> “270, 1 DELETEs, numeric BETWEEN, indexed"
> 3.9.2 uses 0.
In order to profile sqlite 3.9.2 and sqlite 3.16.2, I run speedtest1.c on my
mobile phone.
It is weird to find that 3.9.2 is better than 3.16.2, especially in the
following case:
“270, 1 DELETEs, numeric BETWEEN, indexed"
3.9.2 uses 0.7s while 3.16.2 uses 1.8s;
My relevant comp
Hi all, I tried the sugestion made by Clemens using PRAGMA locking_mode =
EXCLUSIVE.
This works fine for me.
Thanks a lot.
2017-06-13 20:46 GMT+02:00 David Raymond :
> "Also please note that SQLite does a 'lazy open'. When you create your
> connection to the database file, SQLite doesn’t actua
"Also please note that SQLite does a 'lazy open'. When you create your
connection to the database file, SQLite doesn’t actually open the file.
Instead the file handling is done the first time SQLite needs the data from the
file. So the first SELECT after a new connection is made takes longer
On 13 Jun 2017, at 10:53am, rv.gauth...@free.fr wrote:
> Is there a way (pragma, compile flags, ...) to gain these 14 ms for the first
> query ?
In SQLite, it is transactions which take all the time. Individual commands
such as SELECT are fast. What takes the time is the locking, journal ac
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:53:05 +0200
rv.gauth...@free.fr wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> we are using sqlite3 on an embedded application.
> The database is opened in read only mode and can't be modified by the
> application.
>
> I noticed that the first SELECT statement after a BEGIN TRANSACTION
> takes at
rv.gauth...@free.fr wrote:
> I noticed that the first SELECT statement after a BEGIN TRANSACTION takes at
> least 14 ms.
> All subsequent queries in the same transaction are taking near 0 ms.
>
> If I omit the BEGIN TRANSACTION, all queries are taking at least 14 ms.
Because then you get an autom
Hi all,
we are using sqlite3 on an embedded application.
The database is opened in read only mode and can't be modified by the
application.
I noticed that the first SELECT statement after a BEGIN TRANSACTION
takes at least 14 ms.
All subsequent queries in the same transaction are taking near
On 1 Dec 2016, at 7:24am, Stephan Stauber wrote:
> SQLite 3.8.5: to INSERT 380.000 records into a in
> inMemory Database it takes 10 seconds
> SQLite 3.10.0 to INSERT 380.000 records into a in
> inMemory Database it takes 35 seconds
Are you doing those
sorry for the delayed response.
with 3.15.2 it is even worse ( it takes 1246s to INSERT 380.000 records)
with 3.8.5 it took only 10s
Best regards
Stephan
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.or
On 12/01/2016 02:24 PM, Stephan Stauber wrote:
Hello,
we have following performance Issue since we upgraded from SQLite 3.8.5 to
SQLite 3.10.0:
SQLite 3.8.5: to INSERT 380.000 records into a in inMemory
Database it takes 10 seconds
SQLite 3.10.0 to INS
Hello,
we have following performance Issue since we upgraded from SQLite 3.8.5 to
SQLite 3.10.0:
SQLite 3.8.5: to INSERT 380.000 records into a in inMemory
Database it takes 10 seconds
SQLite 3.10.0 to INSERT 380.000 records into a in inMemory
Database
On 8/16/16, Raja Kajiev wrote:
>
> *The output of .fullschema command:*
> sqlite> .fullschema -indent
> CREATE TABLE 'CLIPPED_UPDATE'(
> CREATE TABLE 'DATASET'(
> CREATE TABLE 'EXSET'(
> CREATE TABLE 'EXSET_DATASET'(
> /* No STAT tables available */
No indexes. No PRIMARY KEYs.
I wonder if
I can send whatever required else if the following bits are not enough.
*The output of .fullschema command:*
sqlite> .fullschema -indent
CREATE TABLE 'CLIPPED_UPDATE'(
'name' TEXT,
'edition' INTEGER NOT NULL,
'coverage_id' INTEGER NOT NULL,
'update_no' INTEGER NOT NULL,
'data' BLOB
On 8/10/16, Raja Kajiev wrote:
> The issue is: one of requests performed in my app was executed in ~7
> seconds in v.3.10, but in v.3.14 execution time is ~13-15 seconds. That's
> really itching in my case.
> The sql request in question includes "inner join" constructs.
> I also remember that in v
The issue is: one of requests performed in my app was executed in ~7
seconds in v.3.10, but in v.3.14 execution time is ~13-15 seconds. That's
really itching in my case.
The sql request in question includes "inner join" constructs.
I also remember that in version prior to 3.10 the execution time fo
Just to let you know, the solution using SELECT * FROM (query with
offset/limit) works perfectly well. Thanks a lot for the suggestion!
I think the doc is right. I overcame the problem by using a construct like:
SELECT field1, field2? WHERE PKEY IN (SELECT PKEY ? WHERE OFFSET n LIMIT
m)
That executes a sub query.
But your solution looks actually better, as it is:
SELECT * FROM (SELECT field1, field2? WHERE OFFSET n LIMIT m)
I
Thanks. I know about the technique your mentioned, but the point is not about
the use of offset or not. The same issue will happen but using a key.
See my other reply above.
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:40:23 +0200, Clemens Ladisch
wrote:
> OFFSET is inefficient because the database still has to compute all the
> rows before skipping over them.
>
> To do paging, remember the first and last date values on the page, and
> for the previous/next page, just continue from there:
Philippe Riand wrote:
> I have a table with 500,000+ records. The table has a date column,
> that I?m using to sort my queries (the columns has an index). Simple
> queries on the table work very well, using ORDER BY, LIMIT & OFFSET.
> I?m actually extracting ?pages? of rows that I?m displaying in a
Op 1 okt 2015, om 04:10 heeft Philippe Riand wrote:
> I have a table with 500,000+ records. The table has a date column,
> that I?m using to sort my queries (the columns has an index). Simple
> queries on the table work very well, using ORDER BY, LIMIT & OFFSET.
> I?m actually extracting ?pa
I have a table with 500,000+ records. The table has a date column, that I?m
using to sort my queries (the columns has an index). Simple queries on the
table work very well, using ORDER BY, LIMIT & OFFSET. I?m actually extracting
?pages? of rows that I?m displaying in a web page. Great!.
Now, in
On 2015-04-13 09:49 AM, Jeff Roux wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have copied the original database on my personnal website in a tbz
> archive here :
>
> http://nice-waterpolo.com/misc/db/
>
> There is only one index on timestamp,protocol.
Hi Jeff,
I am not sure what is wrong your side, but the tabl
Hi everyone,
I have copied the original database on my personnal website in a tbz
archive here :
http://nice-waterpolo.com/misc/db/
There is only one index on timestamp,protocol.
Thanks.
2015-04-08 14:38 GMT+02:00 R.Smith :
>
>
> On 2015-04-08 01:57 PM, Dominique Devienne wrote:
>
>> No Domin
On 2015-04-08 01:57 PM, Dominique Devienne wrote:
>> No Dominique, it's not that -
>>
> Perhaps. But that still doesn't get to my point. With a LIMIT clause, in
> such a GROUP BY ORDER BY returning a large result set, would SQLite:
> 1) sort the whole result-set and then keep only the first top-N
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 4/8/15, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > With a LIMIT clause, in
> > such a GROUP BY ORDER BY returning a large result set, would SQLite:
> > 1) sort the whole result-set and then keep only the first top-N rows?
> > 2) or instead do a partia
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:24 PM, R.Smith wrote:
> On 2015-04-08 11:35 AM, Dominique Devienne wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Jeff Roux wrote:
>>
>>> time echo 'SELECT ... FROM flows WHERE timestamp>=1383770600 AND \
>>> timestamp<=1384770600 AND protocol IN (17, 6) GROUP BY por
On 2015-04-08 11:35 AM, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Jeff Roux wrote:
>
>> # For mysql, I use:
>> /etc/init.d/mysql stop; /etc/init.d/mysql start; \
>> time echo 'SELECT SUM(nbBytesDecompOut+nbBytesCompIn) as vol, portLan \
>> as item FROM flows WHERE timest
On 8 Apr 2015, at 10:16am, Jeff Roux wrote:
> SELECT SUM(nbBytesDecompOut+nbBytesCompIn) as vol, portLan \
> as item FROM flows WHERE timestamp>=1383770600 AND \
> timestamp<=1384770600 AND protocol IN (17, 6) GROUP BY portLan \
> ORDER BY vol DESC LIMIT 6
If you want us to understa
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Jeff Roux wrote:
> # For mysql, I use:
> /etc/init.d/mysql stop; /etc/init.d/mysql start; \
> time echo 'SELECT SUM(nbBytesDecompOut+nbBytesCompIn) as vol, portLan \
> as item FROM flows WHERE timestamp>=1383770600 AND \
> timestamp<=1384770600 AND proto
Thanks everyone for your answers,
I made some changes to the database according to the information you
gave me. It improved the performance of the query by about 20% (the
request now takes 4 seconds instead of 5).
Here are some more information, regarding all the suggestions I
received:
- The
On 4/8/15, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> With a LIMIT clause, in
> such a GROUP BY ORDER BY returning a large result set, would SQLite:
> 1) sort the whole result-set and then keep only the first top-N rows?
> 2) or instead do a partial-sort of the first top-N rows only,
SQLite must examine all ro
In case of SELECTing "all available" I recommend invoking a different
statement without the timestamp-part instead of providing some min and
max values for timestamp. This avoids tricking the query planner into
some wrong decisions (if you have an index with protocol as the first
column).
And
On 2015-04-01 10:20 AM, Jeff Roux wrote:
> Here is the complete schema:
>
> sqlite> .schema
> CREATE TABLE application (id INTEGER CONSTRAINT applpk PRIMARY KEY,
> shortname VARCHAR(64), name VARCHAR(256));
>
> CREATE TABLE flows (idx INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, ipLan INTEGER, ipWan INTEGER,
> flags INT
Here is the complete schema:
sqlite> .schema
CREATE TABLE application (id INTEGER CONSTRAINT applpk PRIMARY KEY,
shortname VARCHAR(64), name VARCHAR(256));
CREATE TABLE flows (idx INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, ipLan INTEGER, ipWan INTEGER,
flags INTEGER, portLan INTEGER, portWan INTEGER, tos INTEGER, prot
Thanks everyone for the answers.
I won't be able to make some tests today, I will come back to you soon with
additional information. Just to say that, in the worst case, the WHERE
clause selects the entire data, i.e 100 entries. The user can select a
time range of 1 hour, 3 hours, 1 day, and ?
From what I see, I assume that timestamp gives the highest selectivity.
Taking into account that protocol is SELECTed for and portLan is GROUPed
BY, I'd try an index (timestamp, protocol, portLan) (not sure if portLan
helps here, but it's worth a try, I think). Don't forget to ANALYZE, of
cour
On 2015-03-30 11:46 AM, Jeff Roux wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have a daemon that collects information and stores it in a SQLite
> database. The table has 1 million rows.
>
> This daemon is running on a HP server with 12 cores, 32 GB of RAM,
> and a SSD drive. I have performance issues with some r
Simon,
here is the list of the indexes that were already defined on the table:
CREATE INDEX idxLanWan ON flows(ipLan, ipWan, portWan, portLan);
CREATE INDEX idxProto ON flows(protocol);
CREATE INDEX idxTos ON flows(tos);
CREATE INDEX idxTsLanWan ON flows(timestamp, ipLan, ipWan, portWan,
portLan);
Hi everyone,
I have a daemon that collects information and stores it in a SQLite
database. The table has 1 million rows.
This daemon is running on a HP server with 12 cores, 32 GB of RAM,
and a SSD drive. I have performance issues with some requests. For
instance, the following request takes more
On 30 Mar 2015, at 10:46am, Jeff Roux wrote:
> This daemon is running on a HP server with 12 cores, 32 GB of RAM,
> and a SSD drive. I have performance issues with some requests. For
> instance, the following request takes more than 5 seconds to
> accomplish with SQlite3 (in that particular case
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Jeff Roux wrote:
> Simon,
>
> here is the list of the indexes that were already defined on the table:
> CREATE INDEX idxLanWan ON flows(ipLan, ipWan, portWan, portLan);
> CREATE INDEX idxProto ON flows(protocol);
> CREATE INDEX idxTos ON flows(tos);
> CREATE INDEX
ces at mailinglists.sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-
>bounces at mailinglists.sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Roux
>Sent: Monday, 30 March, 2015 03:46
>To: sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org
>Subject: [sqlite] Performance issue
>
>Hi everyone,
>
>I have a daemon that collect
us Bergsten ; General Discussion of SQLite
Database
Skickat: onsdag, 15 oktober 2014 0:29
Ämne: Re: [sqlite] Performance issue when copying data from one sqlite
database to another
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Pontus Bergsten
wrote:
When the application is executed on Windows o
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 01:26:10 +0200, Kees Nuyt
wrote:
> http://knuyt.demon.nl/sqlite.org/faq.html#q19
Oops, make that
http://www.sqlite.org/faq.html#q19
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listi
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 21:24:40 + (UTC), Pontus Bergsten
wrote:
>Hi,
>I have the following problem setup:
[...]
> INSERT INTO Dest.TheTable (field1, ..., fieldN) FROM Main.TheTable WHERE time
> BETWEEN t1 AND t2
>
> Is there any technique that can be used for tuning the performance of sqlite3
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Pontus Bergsten
wrote:
> When the application is executed on Windows on a desktop computer, the
> copying works fine and the performance is fairly ok, even when saving to
> USB. However, when the same code is executed on the embedded system, the
> copying of data
On 14 Oct 2014, at 10:24pm, Pontus Bergsten wrote:
> INSERT INTO Dest.TheTable (field1, ..., fieldN) FROM Main.TheTable WHERE time
> BETWEEN t1 AND t2
> And here is the performance problem: When the application is executed on
> Windows on a desktop computer, the copying works fine and the perf
On the embedded unit write caching disabled?
2014-10-14 23:24 GMT+02:00 Pontus Bergsten :
> Hi,
> I have the following problem setup:
> We use sqlite3 in an embedded signal logger application. The "Main"
> in-memory signal signal database consists of some minor signal definition
> tables + two l
Depends on how safe/robust you want the copying to be, but if you can
simply rerun if something goes wrong, you might look into stuff like:
pragma journal_mode = MEMORY;
pragma synchronous = off;
But make sure you understand the consequences first by reading about these
commands:
http://www.sqli
Hi,
I have the following problem setup:
We use sqlite3 in an embedded signal logger application. The "Main" in-memory
signal signal database consists of some minor signal definition tables + two
large tables (shards) with the actual signal data. The sharding technique is
used in order to impleme
CtrlFlag);"
Thanks for Clemens' correction.
Hi Clemens,
I will try your advice and feed back the test result tomorrow.
>Message: 5
>Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 21:53:58 +0800
>From: 163
>To: "sqlite-users@sqlite.org"
>Subject: [sqlite] Performance issue using SQLit
163 wrote:
> I met a performance issue when using SQLite 3.8.4.3. I found it would
> be quite slow trying to select count(*) using a where statement with
> several OR condition. For example:
>
> select ctrl_no from T_CTRL_CLRRULE where CTRL_NO='%s' and ((PRODUCT_ID='%s'
> and OPERATE_TYPE='%s') or
> Hi Experts,
> I met a performance issue when using SQLite 3.8.4.3. I found it would be
> quite slow trying to select count(*) using a where statement with several OR
> condition. For example:
>
> sprintf (sql_str, "select ctrl_no from T_CTRL_CLRRULE where CTRL_NO='%s' and
> ((PRODUCT_ID='%s
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:11 PM, jic wrote:
> "Richard Hipp" wrote...
>
> Dr. Hipp,
>
> will this fix break the work-around you provided,
>
> "
> to put a "+" sign in front of the "elements.id" identifier in the ON
> clause:
>
> SELECT count(*) FROM elements JOIN tags ON +elements.id = tags.eleme
"Richard Hipp" wrote...
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Martin Altmayer <
martin.altma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I have a query that runs more than 400x slower in 3.7.16.2 than in
3.7.11.
This seems to be caused by the use of
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Martin Altmayer <
> martin.altma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a query that runs more than 400x slower in 3.7.16.2 than in 3.7.11.
>>
>
> This seems to be caused by the use of transitive c
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Martin Altmayer <
martin.altma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a query that runs more than 400x slower in 3.7.16.2 than in 3.7.11.
>
This seems to be caused by the use of transitive constraints in version
3.7.16. Your work-around (until an official fix
Hi,
I have a query that runs more than 400x slower in 3.7.16.2 than in 3.7.11.
Instead of posting the original query, I post a simplified version which
still experiences the problem with a factor of over 100x:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM elements JOIN tags ON elements.id = tags.element_id
WHERE elements
An Correction!
/***/
DROP TRIGGER IF EXISTS movement_trg02;
CREATE TRIGGER movement_trg02 AFTER INSERT ON movement FOR EACH ROW
BEGIN
REPLACE INTO movement
SELECT t1.id
, t1.account_id
, t1.payment
, t1.amount
, (COA
ot;General Discussion of SQLite Database"
Enviadas: Terça-feira, 1 de Junho de 2010 17:12:02
Assunto: Re: [sqlite] Performance issue on view
Create a new table to do this and add a trigger on op to make the sum.
- Mensagem original -
De: "Stéphane MANKOWSKI"
Para:
Create a new table to do this and add a trigger on op to make the sum.
- Mensagem original -
De: "Stéphane MANKOWSKI"
Para: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Enviadas: Terça-feira, 1 de Junho de 2010 16:57:16
Assunto: [sqlite] Performance issue on view
Hi,
In the this database
> PS: I don't want to compute "balance" attribute by code and save it in op
> balance due to the fact that I am using an undo/redo mechanism.
>From my experience this is the only way to go - calculate the balance
in your application then store it in database along with transaction
as "balance afte
Hi,
In the this database file (http://skrooge.org/files/test.wrk), I created a
table
named "op" containing banking
transactions.
A transaction has:
An unique id
An account
A date
An amount
I created a view named "v_op" with one more computed attribute named
"ba
On 16 Jul 2009, at 6:22pm, MADHAVAN VINOD wrote:
> Suppose, if I don't have index, is this the desired behavior of Sqlite
> to take this much time to fetch just 10 records or am I missing
> something here.
Your first post states quite clearly '5) No INDEX created.'. Without
any index on your
ers-boun...@sqlite.org
> [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Michal Seliga
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:37 PM
> To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Performance issue on records retrieval :: 100,000
> records
>
>
>
> MADHAVAN VIN
-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Michal Seliga
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:37 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Performance issue on records retrieval :: 100,000
records
MADHAVAN VINOD wrote:
>
> 5) No INDEX created.
>
> The retrieval logic is such
MADHAVAN VINOD wrote:
>
> 5) No INDEX created.
>
> The retrieval logic is such that to retrieve the oldest 10 records along
> with some additional constraints (say a, b and c are columns and the
> constraints are like a=1 AND b < c).
>
>
>
> So my WHERE clause is like "CurrTime <= Expire
Hi All,
Description of my setup:
My database contains
1) One table
2) 20 fields (contains date field to store the inserted time)
3) 100,000 records
4) database size is 21MB.
5) No INDEX created.
6) Sqlite version 3.5.9.
The retrieval logic is such that to retrieve the
On 8/07/2009 7:11 PM, aalap shah wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am a new user to sqlite3, I have a program that searches through a
> database. I have a table with 1 column as varchar and I want to
> perform a search on it.
> I have created an index over that column. And I use a select query
> with "column_nam
On Jul 8, 2009, at 4:11 PM, aalap shah wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am a new user to sqlite3, I have a program that searches through a
> database. I have a table with 1 column as varchar and I want to
> perform a search on it.
> I have created an index over that column. And I use a select query
> with "col
Hi,
I am a new user to sqlite3, I have a program that searches through a
database. I have a table with 1 column as varchar and I want to
perform a search on it.
I have created an index over that column. And I use a select query
with "column_name LIKE 'a%' ".
So my first question is will this query
Stergios Zissakis wrote:
My question is: shouldn't sqlite's engine figure out what I am trying
to do and sort the tables on the fly in an effort to optimize the query?
When using no indexes, a .explain reveals 3 nested loops which take a
long time to return results.
Any help/ideas will be mu
Hello to everyone,
This is my first post in the list
I've got the following 3 tables:
CREATE TABLE A
(
int1 INTEGER,
txt1 TEXT,
int2 INTEGER,
txt2 TEXT,
PRIMARY KEY
(
txt1
)
);
CREATE TABLE B
(
txt1 TEXT,
int1 INTEGER
);
CREATE TABLE C
(
txt1 TEXT,
int1 INTEGER
);
Each table
e it!
*
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:36 pm
Subject: [sqlite] performance issue
> Hi
>
> I am using SQLite on MVL OS for ARM processor based embedded platform.
> I am using SQLite versio
Hi
I am using SQLite on MVL OS for ARM processor based embedded platform.
I am using SQLite version 3.3.13. We use SQLite APIs for DB operation.
I am facing following issue.
While testing I observed INSERT and UPDATE command is taking more time
than SELECT queries.
For example one select query
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Performance Issue with SQLite Inserts
Soham Mehta wrote:
> Thanks you for all of the ideas. Here are answers to the various
questions:
>
> 1) Currently, I am committing after every 10,000 inserts. Initially, I
was
> running all of the inserts of a
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo