John Elrick wrote:
John Stanton wrote:
John Elrick wrote:
John Stanton wrote:
I would look at the disk controller/disk drive hardware and the
software driver to see if they are reporting correctly to the OS.
Some of your numbers are too fast for regular disk technology and
suggest that
John Stanton wrote:
John Elrick wrote:
John Stanton wrote:
I would look at the disk controller/disk drive hardware and the
software driver to see if they are reporting correctly to the OS.
Some of your numbers are too fast for regular disk technology and
suggest that there are either hardw
John Elrick wrote:
John Stanton wrote:
The real time with the pragma off is 1.78 seconds. The real time on
the "faster" machine is 8.4 seconds. When I set the synchronous
pragma to off on the "faster" machine, the time drops to 1.64.
John
Do your various machines use the same hard disk c
John Stanton wrote:
The real time with the pragma off is 1.78 seconds. The real time on
the "faster" machine is 8.4 seconds. When I set the synchronous
pragma to off on the "faster" machine, the time drops to 1.64.
John
Do your various machines use the same hard disk controller and simila
John Elrick wrote:
John Elrick wrote:
John Elrick wrote:
Griggs, Donald wrote:
John Elrick wrote:
"what the heck is happening that is creating a better than order of
magnitude difference in execution time on five out of seven Windows
machines?".
John,
If the database is opened
Nuno Lucas wrote:
On 4/26/07, John Elrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. Settings which cause Media Center to return control more
optimistically than Pro or Home. In this case, there would be a
hypothetically higher risk of data loss on the Media Center machine.
However, the point of a synchr
Nuno Lucas wrote:
And you seem to not have noticed this link:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/maintain/optimize/wperfch7.mspx
I actually did and thank you. I received your message within a minute
after I had sent my last one. The wonders of email delays
John
On 4/26/07, John Elrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Using two machines as an example, XP Home and XP Media Center.
XP Home and Media Center with the pragma synchronous=OFF executes the
test operation in under 2.0 seconds.
Set to FULL the times are, respectively 118 seconds and 8 seconds.
The tes
Griggs, Donald wrote:
I may be confused a bit.
Regarding: 1) "the described slowdown occurs consistently on Windows
XP Home and Pro and on Windows Vista."
On its face, I would think this means that Xp Home and Vista do *NOT*
have a problem, and that "fast" behaviour represents an integrity-ris
On 4/26/07, John Elrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some interesting new information, if anyone can make use of it.
After adding one more machine to the test, we have established that the
described slowdown occurs consistently on Windows XP Home and Pro and on
Windows Vista. The problem appears
-Original Message-
From: John Elrick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:10 AM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Odd performance issue under Windows
Some interesting new information, if anyone can make use of it.
After adding one more machine to th
Some interesting new information, if anyone can make use of it.
After adding one more machine to the test, we have established that the
described slowdown occurs consistently on Windows XP Home and Pro and on
Windows Vista. The problem appears to be absent on Windows Media Center
(two differe
>> Thanks Donald. The results are now identical. So, it has to do with
>> buffer flushing differences between the machines. Now I have to
>> figure out what the differences are given that the XP laptop is
>> configured as shipped and is showing the performance improvement.
>
>
>Addendum. I h
John Elrick wrote:
John Elrick wrote:
Griggs, Donald wrote:
John Elrick wrote:
"what the heck is happening that is creating a better than order of
magnitude difference in execution time on five out of seven Windows
machines?".
John,
If the database is opened and closed just once for
John Elrick wrote:
Griggs, Donald wrote:
John Elrick wrote:
"what the heck is happening that is creating a better than order of
magnitude difference in execution time on five out of seven Windows
machines?".
John,
If the database is opened and closed just once for your testing, I thi
Griggs, Donald wrote:
John Elrick wrote:
"what the heck is happening that is creating a better than order of
magnitude difference in execution time on five out of seven Windows
machines?".
John,
If the database is opened and closed just once for your testing, I think
you can find out
John Elrick wrote:
> "what the heck is happening that is creating a better than order of
> magnitude difference in execution time on five out of seven Windows
> machines?".
John,
If the database is opened and closed just once for your testing, I think
you can find out if buffer flushing is invo
John Elrick wrote:
"what the heck is happening that is creating a better than order of
magnitude difference in execution time on five out of seven Windows
machines?".
Sounds like different filesystem behavior, such as caching, returning
before the writing is actually done, etc.
Gerry
---
I've encountered an unusual problem with SQLite performance under
Windows and am hoping someone might have an idea of what might be happening.
We are developing a Delphi application which uses SQLite compiled into
the program. During one round of tests we discovered a section of code
which wa
19 matches
Mail list logo
