nly a Stairway to Heaven says
> a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users-
> >boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Peter da Silva
> >Sent: Thursday, 22 August, 2019 11:57
> >To: SQLite
out anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Message-
>From: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users-
>boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Peter da Silva
>Sent: Thursday, 22 August, 2019 11:57
>To: SQLite mailing list
>Subject: Re: [sqlite] Attached databases and union view.
Still a bit over 3x slower on queries but that's a 7x performance
improvement.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:40 AM Peter da Silva wrote:
> Legit. I'll try that.
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:33 AM David Raymond
> wrote:
>
>> I don't know how smart the planner is, but as a thought, would UNION ALL
Originally Tcl/native Tcl binding, now a C++ extension calling the
C-binding that's a Tcl extension itself.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:17 AM test user
wrote:
> What language/binding library are you using?
>
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 16:45, Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> > Database is on tmpfs and per
Legit. I'll try that.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:33 AM David Raymond
wrote:
> I don't know how smart the planner is, but as a thought, would UNION ALL
> make any improvement over just UNION? With just UNION it has to
> de-duplicate all the subquery results whereas with UNION ALL it would be
> fr
I don't know how smart the planner is, but as a thought, would UNION ALL make
any improvement over just UNION? With just UNION it has to de-duplicate all the
subquery results whereas with UNION ALL it would be free to separate all the
various subqueries from each other.
Or do you actually need
What language/binding library are you using?
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 16:45, Peter da Silva wrote:
> Database is on tmpfs and periodically snapshotted to SSD. There are
> bottlenecks upstream of sqlite that we can see in traces.
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:36 AM Warren Young wrote:
>
> > On Au
Database is on tmpfs and periodically snapshotted to SSD. There are
bottlenecks upstream of sqlite that we can see in traces.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:36 AM Warren Young wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Peter da Silva wrote:
> >
> > Have an existing application that's pushing the limit
>
On Aug 22, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> Have an existing application that's pushing the limit
If the limit is in hardware, shards won’t help.
For example, a SQLite DB on a 7200 RPM spinning disk is limited to about 60
transactions per second under the stock SQLite fsync logic,
9 matches
Mail list logo
