-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org
[mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Trainor, Chris
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 5:31 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Slow performance with Sum function
> Do not be temp
> Do not be tempted by the incremental vacuum feature. Incremental
> vacuum will reduce the database size as content is deleted, but it
> will not reduce fragmentation. In fact, incremental vacuum will
> likely increase fragmentation. Incremental vacuum is just a variation
> on
Hello!
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 17:19:09 Jim Wilcoxson wrote:
> Have you tried changing the page size to 4096 or 8192? Doing this
> with my SQLite application and increasing the transaction size
> decreased runtime from over 4 hours to 75 minutes. The runtime for
> my app writing the same
Have you tried changing the page size to 4096 or 8192? Doing this
with my SQLite application and increasing the transaction size
decreased runtime from over 4 hours to 75 minutes.The runtime for
my app writing the same amount of data to flat files was 55 minutes,
so the time penalty for
Hello!
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 04:44:05 D. Richard Hipp wrote:
> One could envision future versions
> of SQLite that allowed you to preallocate a large database files such
> that the database always stayed less than 80% full. Then we could use
> filesystem techniques to keep
On Mar 3, 2009, at 8:01 PM, Trainor, Chris wrote:
> I'm not sure how much we can do about preventing adds and deletes.
> It *may* be possible to replace them with updates, but I am not sure
> yet. These adds and deletes are happening in a different table than
> the one being summed.
-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org
[mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of John Machin
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 7:53 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Slow performance with Sum function
On 4/03/2009 5:52 AM, Trainor
: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org]
On Behalf Of P Kishor
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 7:41 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Slow performance with Sum function
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Greg Palmer <gregoryl
On 4/03/2009 5:52 AM, Trainor, Chris wrote:
> I am trying to use the Sum function on a column in a table with ~450K
> rows in it.
>
> Select sum(Col4) from Table1
>
> Where Table1 looks like this:
>
> Create TABLE Table1 (
> Col1 INTEGER NOT NULL,
> Col2 INTEGER NOT NULL,
>
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Greg Palmer wrote:
> Trainor, Chris wrote:
>> After running vacuum, sum is fast on the original table. However,
>> running vacuum took a long time, so I'm not sure if that is a feasible
>> solution. Is there any way to prevent
Trainor, Chris wrote:
> After running vacuum, sum is fast on the original table. However,
> running vacuum took a long time, so I'm not sure if that is a feasible
> solution. Is there any way to prevent fragmentation in the first place?
> If not for the whole database, then for a specific table?
to preallocate space for a table?)
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org
[mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Igor Tandetnik
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 2:00 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Slow performance with Sum function
Trainor, Chris
wrote:
> I am trying to use the Sum function on a column in a table with ~450K
> rows in it.
>
> Select sum(Col4) from Table1
>
> It takes over 2 minutes to execute when using the original table. I
> created an exact copy of the table with the same
I am trying to use the Sum function on a column in a table with ~450K
rows in it.
Select sum(Col4) from Table1
Where Table1 looks like this:
Create TABLE Table1 (
Col1 INTEGER NOT NULL,
Col2 INTEGER NOT NULL,
Col3 INTEGER NOT NULL,
Col4 BIGINT NOT NULL,
14 matches
Mail list logo