Ok. Thank you for your explanation everyone and for being patient with me.
I look forward to Sqlite4 in whatever features you implement :)
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Raheel Gupta wrote:
>
> >
> > I guess a Row level locking could be
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Raheel Gupta wrote:
>
> I guess a Row level locking could be difficult but a Page Level locking
> could be not that difficult.
>
In an anomaly-free system, page level locking is not difficult. The
difficulty comes when you have to recover from an application cra
On 2013/11/11 08:40, Raheel Gupta wrote:
I guess a Row level locking could be difficult but a Page Level locking
could be not that difficult.
ATM "db level locking" :
If DB locked throw busy error
In not locked lock db, let the writer do its thing
For Page level locking (I think you could allo
Hello,
If I would have one wish, it would not be the row level locking but the
merge syntax, so usefulf to update, insert or update in 1 command (no
insert or replace is not an equivalent), and in general it would be good to
implement the sql 2003.
Just a wish.
Best regards,
Sylvain
Le lundi 11
@simon
I guess a Row level locking could be difficult but a Page Level locking
could be not that difficult.
ATM "db level locking" :
If DB locked throw busy error
In not locked lock db, let the writer do its thing
For Page level locking (I think you could allow something like) :
Let writer write
Just a personal observation from the peanut gallery (my uninformed
opinion). I like SQLite pretty much as is. When I use it, I want reliable
(ACID), fast, and SQL compliant. I use SQLite more like an "embeded" or
"single user" SQL engine. I don't use it for a really hairy data base
application. Yes
On 10 Nov 2013, at 12:05pm, Raheel Gupta wrote:
>>> I can't think of any other single feature that would remove the "lite"
>
> I am not a database expert. If you say so, it must be the case.
> But if there is a way to implement concurrent writers in SQLite maintaining
> the "lite" in SQLite, I
Raheel Gupta wrote:
Look at the performance difference between BDB and SQLite3 here
http://symas.com/mdb/microbench/#sec1
I did, and I really cant comment on that. The results are of 2012 and its
almost 2013. You should update the page with a newer result set.
Or you could just download the c
>> Look at the performance difference between BDB and SQLite3 here
http://symas.com/mdb/microbench/#sec1
I did, and I really cant comment on that. The results are of 2012 and its
almost 2013. You should update the page with a newer result set.
>> I can't think of any other single feature that wou
On 08/11/2013 5:07 AM, Raheel Gupta wrote:
No. It's not even feature-frozen yet, as far as we know. And whenever it
is, it's incredibly unlikely to have row level locking.
Please add row-level locking if possible.
I can't think of any other single feature that would remove the "lite"
from sqli
Raheel Gupta wrote:
Hi,
You use BDB SQL or BDB KV ?
I built BDB 6.0.20 with --enable-sql_compat
It made a libsqlite3.so in the .libs folder which I linked with my QT C++
Application.
You must try it with SQLightning too, https://gitorious.org/mdb/
sqlightning
I tried to build it, but it sa
>
> This is the BDB SQL doc I found.
>
>
> http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E17076_02/html/bdb-sql/dbfeatures.html#bulkloading
>
> If you insert record in bulk, you can use PRAGMA TXN_BULK for optimization.
>
I tested TXN_BULK, still pretty slow. Nearly 2.4 times.
Also the space wastage is pretty high. I
Hi,
>> You use BDB SQL or BDB KV ?
I built BDB 6.0.20 with --enable-sql_compat
It made a libsqlite3.so in the .libs folder which I linked with my QT C++
Application.
>> You must try it with SQLightning too, https://gitorious.org/mdb/
sqlightning
I tried to build it, but it says lmdb.h missing. W
This is the BDB SQL doc I found.
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E17076_02/html/bdb-sql/dbfeatures.html#bulkloading
If you insert record in bulk, you can use PRAGMA TXN_BULK for optimization.
On 11/8/13, Aris Setyawan wrote:
> You use BDB SQL or BDB KV ?
>
> You must try it with SQLightning too, ht
You use BDB SQL or BDB KV ?
You must try it with SQLightning too, https://gitorious.org/mdb/sqlightning
On 11/8/13, Aris Setyawan wrote:
>> For a single threaded application BDB is very bad after I tested.
>> It takes nearly 2.5 times the amount of time and CPU to do a transaction
>> of
>> 40MB
> For a single threaded application BDB is very bad after I tested.
> It takes nearly 2.5 times the amount of time and CPU to do a transaction of
> 40MB Data. E.g. If SQLIte did the 40MB data transaction (1 rows of 4 K)
> in 1 second, BDB was taking 2.5 seconds and more CPU as well. I did this
>> No. It's not even feature-frozen yet, as far as we know. And whenever it
is, it's incredibly unlikely to have row level locking.
Please add row-level locking if possible.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Simon Slavin wrote:
>
> On 7 Nov 2013, at 6:31pm, Raheel Gupta wrote:
>
> > Any idea w
>> If you have many core of processors [and big RAM], then I recommend
BDB Sql over Sqlite. Because you can have many processes or threads to
write to a database concurrently.
For a single threaded application BDB is very bad after I tested.
It takes nearly 2.5 times the amount of time and CPU to
On 7 Nov 2013, at 6:31pm, Raheel Gupta wrote:
> Any idea when will SQLite4 be released as stable ?
No. It's not even feature-frozen yet, as far as we know. And whenever it is,
it's incredibly unlikely to have row level locking.
Simon.
___
sqlite-u
>> SQLite4 still in development phase. It is not production ready.
Any idea when will SQLite4 be released as stable ?
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Howard Chu wrote:
> Aris Setyawan wrote:
>
>> Hi Howard,
>>
>> I just looked, sophia is nothing special. See these microbench results.
>>> http
Aris Setyawan wrote:
Hi Howard,
I just looked, sophia is nothing special. See these microbench results.
http://pastebin.com/cFK1JsCN
LMDB's codebase is still smaller and faster. Nothing else touches LMDB's
read
speed.
This is micro benchmark from sophia author compare with lmdb.
http://sphia
Hi Howard,
> I just looked, sophia is nothing special. See these microbench results.
> http://pastebin.com/cFK1JsCN
>
> LMDB's codebase is still smaller and faster. Nothing else touches LMDB's
> read
> speed.
This is micro benchmark from sophia author compare with lmdb.
http://sphia.org/benchmark
>> SQLite4 still in development phase. It is not production ready.
But isnt that the same thing as BDB or Kyoto i.e. a Key Value store ?
>> If you have many core of processors [and big RAM], then I recommend
BDB Sql over Sqlite.
I have large space and around 4GB of ram with Dual Cores to Quad Co
> Will SQLite4 be a better solution for me then ?
SQLite4 still in development phase. It is not production ready.
> Also @aris do you recommend BDB over Sqlite for 1-10 Billion records ?
If you have many core of processors [and big RAM], then I recommend
BDB Sql over Sqlite. Because you can have
Will SQLite4 be a better solution for me then ?
Also @aris do you recommend BDB over Sqlite for 1-10 Billion records ?
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Aris Setyawan wrote:
> > I just looked, sophia is nothing special. See these microbench results.
> > http://pastebin.com/cFK1JsCN
> >
> > LMDB'
> I just looked, sophia is nothing special. See these microbench results.
> http://pastebin.com/cFK1JsCN
>
> LMDB's codebase is still smaller and faster. Nothing else touches LMDB's
> read
> speed.
Focus to the write number.
You are using SSD or HDD?
On 11/4/13, Howard Chu wrote:
> Aris Setyawa
Aris Setyawan wrote:
SQLightning replaces the SQLite backend with Symas' LMDB, which also uses
MVCC
and thus supports high concurrency. It is also many times faster than
BerkeleyDB and vanilla SQLite.
Your MVCC is different compared to InnoDB or BDB locking. Every one
should carefully read each
Raheel Gupta wrote:
@Howard I had tested your code earlier but it didnt seem to be stable and
getting it to run was a task. Also I learnt that it is a "in-memory"
database.
False. LMDB is a memory-mapped disk database, that is not the same as an
in-memory database.
@Aris are you saying BDB i
@Howard I had tested your code earlier but it didnt seem to be stable and
getting it to run was a task. Also I learnt that it is a "in-memory"
database.
@Aris are you saying BDB is better and faster than SQLite ?
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
> Aris Setyawan wrote:
>
>> SQL
Aris Setyawan wrote:
SQLightning replaces the SQLite backend with Symas' LMDB, which also uses
MVCC
and thus supports high concurrency. It is also many times faster than
BerkeleyDB and vanilla SQLite.
Your MVCC is different compared to InnoDB or BDB locking. Every one
should carefully read each
> SQLightning replaces the SQLite backend with Symas' LMDB, which also uses
> MVCC
> and thus supports high concurrency. It is also many times faster than
> BerkeleyDB and vanilla SQLite.
Your MVCC is different compared to InnoDB or BDB locking. Every one
should carefully read each DB's doc, then
Aris Setyawan wrote:
SQLite do not use row level locking, but db level locking, so it was
the right behavior the second thread was blocked.
For innodb like in SQLite, Oracle have SQLite compatible API, but use
BDB backend.
Since BDB use MVCC (row/page level locking), your threads only blocked
if
SQLite do not use row level locking, but db level locking, so it was
the right behavior the second thread was blocked.
For innodb like in SQLite, Oracle have SQLite compatible API, but use
BDB backend.
Since BDB use MVCC (row/page level locking), your threads only blocked
if they will write in the
On 3 Nov 2013, at 1:24pm, Raheel Gupta wrote:
> In order to avoid this, I had to use journal_mode=wal so that two threads
> dont have to wait when they both are doing SELECTs which might be taking
> 3-5 seconds to process.
I assume you have designed your indexes specifically for your WHERE and
Hi,
I have been using SQLite for one project of mine and I will be storing TBs
of Data.
Now there will be a lot of selections in this database and I have come
across one problem with SQLite.
In journal_mode=delete the selection is database locked.
When one thread does a "TRANSACTION" on the databa
35 matches
Mail list logo
