On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 2/17/17, Kim Gräsman wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, shrink_memory could come in handy. But this is not the problem
>> we're trying to solve -- rather we want to claim as much memory as possible
>> up-front to make mem usage deterministic and make it
On 2/17/17, Kim Gräsman wrote:
>
> Thanks, shrink_memory could come in handy. But this is not the problem
> we're trying to solve -- rather we want to claim as much memory as possible
> up-front to make mem usage deterministic and make it easier to diagnose
> other subsystems with run-away memory
Den 17 feb. 2017 5:33 em skrev "Richard Hipp" :
On 2/17/17, Kim Gräsman wrote:
>
> If we let it use malloc directly and control it
> with the soft heap limit, we'll have a steadily rising memory curve
> until all caches are fully loaded (could take weeks.)
>
Caches get flushed from time to time,
On 2/17/17, Kim Gräsman wrote:
>
> If we let it use malloc directly and control it
> with the soft heap limit, we'll have a steadily rising memory curve
> until all caches are fully loaded (could take weeks.)
>
Caches get flushed from time to time, for example when another process
writes to the d
Thanks for your responses!
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Dominique Pellé
wrote:
>
> I think it's probably best to give a large cache_size to
> each connection, and limit the total amount of memory
> used by SQLite with sqlite3_soft_heap_limit64().
> This will effectively limit the global amoun
Kim Gräsman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In my battles with lots of connections competing over precious cache
> memory, I've considered giving some non-critical connections zero
> cache using `PRAGMA cache_size=0`.
>
> Is this a reasonable thing to do? If zero is too extreme, what might a
> more moderate
On 2/16/17, Kim Gräsman wrote:
> I've considered giving some non-critical connections zero
> cache using `PRAGMA cache_size=0`.
>
> Is this a reasonable thing to do?
Yes.
--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mai
Hi all,
In my battles with lots of connections competing over precious cache
memory, I've considered giving some non-critical connections zero
cache using `PRAGMA cache_size=0`.
Is this a reasonable thing to do? If zero is too extreme, what might a
more moderate small cache size be? 32? 64? 100?
8 matches
Mail list logo