I'm using sqlite as an embedded engine in the application acting like
server for other applications.
Pavel
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 4:17 PM, John Stanton wrote:
> Sqlite does not use a server. It is embedded in the application.
>
> Pavel Ivanov wrote:
>> Unfortunately these two options are not f
Sqlite does not use a server. It is embedded in the application.
Pavel Ivanov wrote:
> Unfortunately these two options are not for me.
> I'm not in control of servers hardware, so my application should work
> on the given servers and nobody will adjust them for my application.
> And about first o
Unfortunately these two options are not for me.
I'm not in control of servers hardware, so my application should work
on the given servers and nobody will adjust them for my application.
And about first option, I believe what you say is to use in-memory
database for intensive operations. But all my
> I have an application written using sqlite. It writes into the
> database very intensively. And I noticed that it works nice and very
> fast but from time to time it just freezes for several seconds (I've
> registered freezes up to 8 secs). After some tracing of sqlite code
I had the same proble
"D. Richard Hipp" schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:fb9c47d5-1b72-4574-bb44-4f0d6685f...@hwaci.com...
> FWIW, we are in the process of "productizing" the
> test_async.c asynchronous VFS for SQLite.
> The new async VFS might be available as a compile-time
> option or as a loadable extension on both wi
On Apr 23, 2009, at 10:05 PM, Pavel Ivanov wrote:
> I think, this will be an awesome option for me, thanks!
> I believe you are talking about sacrificing consistency not only over
> power outage but over SIGKILL too, right? It's a bit worse to have
> though I think it will be acceptable in my cas
I think, this will be an awesome option for me, thanks!
I believe you are talking about sacrificing consistency not only over
power outage but over SIGKILL too, right? It's a bit worse to have
though I think it will be acceptable in my case, because more stable
response time is more important for m
On Apr 23, 2009, at 10:39 AM, John Stanton wrote:
> Running in an unsafe mode for speed does not mean that ultimately
> there
> will have to be no writes,
>
> Perhaps you could devise a system where you post writes to a queue and
> have another thread or process perform the writes asynchronousl
Running in an unsafe mode for speed does not mean that ultimately there
will have to be no writes,
Perhaps you could devise a system where you post writes to a queue and
have another thread or process perform the writes asynchronously. You
would then use otherwise idle machine time for writing
Yes, this could be an option. Although as you pointed it yourself
including rand() and doing it on all statements in code here and there
is not very convenient.
I thought myself about turning synchronous on and changing somehow
sqlite3_io_methods functions where xSync will do its job once in every
On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Pavel Ivanov wrote:
> I've tried to set pragma synchronous = on (it's off by default for
> me), but it makes application to work 5 times slower which is not
> acceptable for me. I would be happy if there was some solution in
> between that, i.e. for example just a bit
11 matches
Mail list logo
