Are there any other processes or threads trying to open your db file while
you run your tests?
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Andrea Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> >> The program took 47 seconds to run, but the results only account for
> >> .39 seconds
> >
> > Most likely all the
>On Jun 30, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Andrea Connell wrote:
>
>> Any ideas? It's driving me crazy why SQLite is this much slower on
>> UNIX
>> boxes, while other applications maintain their speed.
>
>What filesystem are you using on the unix boxes? Are you *sure* you
>are not using NFS?
>
>D. Richard
On Jun 30, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Andrea Connell wrote:
> Any ideas? It's driving me crazy why SQLite is this much slower on
> UNIX
> boxes, while other applications maintain their speed.
What filesystem are you using on the unix boxes? Are you *sure* you
are not using NFS?
D. Richard Hipp
TECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrea Connell
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 11:48 AM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Performance on HP
>> The program took 47 seconds to run, but the results only account for
>> .39 seconds
>
>
>> The program took 47 seconds to run, but the results only account for
>> .39 seconds
>
> Most likely all the time is being spent in IO related system calls
> - read(), write() and fsync().
>
> Dan.
Thanks for the idea Dan. How can I confirm this or try reducing the time
spent? I use the
On Jun 23, 2008, at 10:38 PM, Andrea Connell wrote:
>
>> Have you tried compiling with the profiler and seeing where the
>> time is
> being spent?
>
> I compiled with the profiler and used prof to analyze the mon.out
> file.
> The program took 47 seconds to run, but the results only account
>Have you tried compiling with the profiler and seeing where the time is
being spent?
I compiled with the profiler and used prof to analyze the mon.out file.
The program took 47 seconds to run, but the results only account for .39
seconds
I do compile sqlite3.c into sqlite3.o then link it into
Any thoughts?
>
> Andrea
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Stanton
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 12:08 PM
> To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Performance on HP
>
&g
iginal Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Stanton
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 12:08 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Performance on HP
You are measuring the speed of the respective machines. Benchmark each
one to get re
Andrea Connell wrote:
> I was originally using LIKE but since that can't make use of indexing I
> found this as an alternative to attempt to speed up the query.
>
> So if I wanted to search PHONETIC_KEY LIKE 'ABCD%' I replace it with
> PHONETIC_KEY >= 'ABCD' AND PHONETIC_KEY < 'ABCE'
>
The
Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Performance on HP
You are measuring the speed of the respective machines. Benchmark each
one to get relative performance.
Andrea Connell wrote:
>
> Sorry somehow I sent that before I was quite finished. I'm just
> wondering if there is anything else I s
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 12:28 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Performance on HP
Hi Andrea,
I'm interested in your query:
Andrea Connell wrote:
> char * qry = "SELECT * FRO
Hi Andrea,
I'm interested in your query:
Andrea Connell wrote:
> char * qry = "SELECT * FROM LEVEL1 WHERE COUNTRY_ID = ? AND
> DIR_SEARCH_AREA1 = ? AND ADDRESS_TYPE = ? AND PHONETIC_KEY >= ? AND
> PHONETIC_KEY < ? ;";
>
> char * qry2 = "SELECT * FROM LEVEL2 WHERE
> PARENT_KEY = ? AND
You are measuring the speed of the respective machines. Benchmark each
one to get relative performance.
Andrea Connell wrote:
>
> Sorry somehow I sent that before I was quite finished. I'm just
> wondering if there is anything else I should try. About 30,000 rows are
> found in the end, and
Sorry somehow I sent that before I was quite finished. I'm just
wondering if there is anything else I should try. About 30,000 rows are
found in the end, and it can do this on Windows in less than a second.
I'm convinced it shouldn't take 30 seconds on HP. I know the OS's
caching method will
Now that I have SQLite compiled on HP, I am starting to test
performance. So far it's pretty disappointing though.
I am comparing performance of SQLite versus an in-house directory access
system. I have the same table structure and data for each of them. The
code reads some data from an input
16 matches
Mail list logo
