Joe Wilson wrote:
I think some other factor is at play here.
SQLite 2.x's memory databases are still twice as fast at batch inserts
than either 3.x's disk-based databases or 2.x's disk-based databases
when the DB size is less than physical machine memory.
Joe,
Yes there is another
Dennis Cote wrote:
Joe Wilson wrote:
I think some other factor is at play here.
Yes there is another factor at work here. [...] I suspect there are
optimizations that could be made to the memory I/O routines to speed
them up, they should at least be able to run slightly faster than file
Hi,
I am really really thankful to all the members of this group. The Discussion
here was really very helpful for me and also for the others.
I was not as much experienced as the other members who took part in this
dicussion, but i worked hard ad spent a lot of time to find out why i am
--- Martin Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For :memory: databases, long periods
were observed where the VM size crept up but I/O write bytes did not,
followed by periods where I/O bytes increased.
If you use PRAGMA temp_store=MEMORY with your :memory: database
you will have no I/O
I think some other factor is at play here.
SQLite 2.x's memory databases are still twice as fast at batch inserts
than either 3.x's disk-based databases or 2.x's disk-based databases
when the DB size is less than physical machine memory.
I did some experimentation with an SQLite 2.8.17
Joe Wilson wrote:
--- Martin Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For :memory: databases, long periods
were observed where the VM size crept up but I/O write bytes did not,
followed by periods where I/O bytes increased.
If you use PRAGMA temp_store=MEMORY with your :memory: database
you will
Manzoor Ilahi Tamimy wrote:
sqlite3_exec(db, create table t (a integer, b float, c text,d integer,
e float, f text, g float, h text), NULL, NULL, NULL);
sqlite3_exec(db, begin transaction, NULL, NULL, NULL);
sqlite3_prepare(db, insert into t values (?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ? ,
Manzoor Ilahi Tamimy wrote:
I have tested my Code with the following PRAGMA and still not getting any
change in time.
//--
sqlite3_exec(db, PRAGMA temp_store=2, NULL, NULL, NULL);
sqlite3_exec(db, PRAGMA synchronous=0, NULL, NULL,
This is a modified version of the test code I posted to show
that there
was a small but definite SLOWDOWN when using :memory:
databases compared
to a database in a file on disk. It seems strange, but it is
true. Use a
disk file for best speed.
If true, this is crazy. Memory is
At 03:09 23/06/2006, you wrote:
#include stdafx.h
samples, t, samples / t);
getch();
//*
Here you should create index for table t. In your previous example, for hvh itm
// Select Time check
Cacheing will drive you crazy.
CARTER-HITCHIN, David, GBM wrote:
This is a modified version of the test code I posted to show
that there
was a small but definite SLOWDOWN when using :memory:
databases compared
to a database in a file on disk. It seems strange, but it is
true. Use a
disk
John Stanton wrote:
Cacheing will drive you crazy.
Very well put.
Most of SQLite's disk I/O is actually going to the memory used for the
operating system's disk cache, not directly to the disk. Hence its speed
is not much different when using a disk based database than a memory
based
On 23 Jun 2006, at 14:16, Dennis Cote wrote:
John Stanton wrote:
Cacheing will drive you crazy.
Very well put.
Most of SQLite's disk I/O is actually going to the memory used for
the operating system's disk cache, not directly to the disk. Hence
its speed is not much different when
--- Manzoor Ilahi Tamimy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DISK MODE
3000 000 INSERTS 31 Seconds 96774 INSERTS / Sec
SELECT * from t 5 Seconds.
MEMORY MODE
3000 000 INSERTS 53 Seconds 56604 INSERTS / Sec
SELECT * from t 5 Seconds.
Can I reduce the TIME of DISK mode or this is the
On 23 Jun 2006, at 14:16, Dennis Cote wrote:
Most of SQLite's disk I/O is actually going to the memory used for
the operating system's disk cache, not directly to the disk. Hence
its speed is not much different when using a disk based database
than a memory based database. I'm still
I have tested my Code with the following PRAGMA and still not getting any
change in time.
//--
sqlite3_exec(db, PRAGMA temp_store=2, NULL, NULL, NULL);
sqlite3_exec(db, PRAGMA synchronous=0, NULL, NULL, NULL);
sqlite3_exec(db, PRAGMA
Manzoor Ilahi Tamimy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here Is The Schema For these Tables.
CREATE TABLE HVH (
Field1 VARCHAR(8),IDC VARCHAR(4),
Field3 VARCHAR(2),Field4 VARCHAR(4),
Field5 VARCHAR(7),Field6 VARCHAR(8),
Field7 VARCHAR(1),Field8 FLOAT);
CREATE TABLE ITM(
IDC
At 03:30 20/06/2006, you wrote:
Here Is The Schema For these Tables.
CREATE TABLE HVH (
Field1 VARCHAR(8), IDC VARCHAR(4),
Field3 VARCHAR(2), Field4 VARCHAR(4),
Field5 VARCHAR(7), Field6 VARCHAR(8),
Field7 VARCHAR(1), Field8 FLOAT);
CREATE TABLE ITM(
IDC VARCHAR(4),
Manzoor Ilahi Tamimy wrote:
Here Is The Schema For these Tables.
CREATE TABLE HVH (
Field1 VARCHAR(8), IDC VARCHAR(4),
Field3 VARCHAR(2), Field4 VARCHAR(4),
Field5 VARCHAR(7), Field6 VARCHAR(8),
Field7 VARCHAR(1), Field8 FLOAT);
CREATE TABLE ITM(
IDC VARCHAR(4),ITEMNAME
Hello All,
We are Using SQLite for one of our project.
The Database Size is more than 500 MB.
It contain one table and about 10 million Records.
We are facing Problem in the select with single Join. The join is between a
big table and a small table. The small table contain records not more
Manzoor Ilahi Tamimy wrote:
Hello All,
We are Using SQLite for one of our project.
The Database Size is more than 500 MB.
It contain one table and about 10 million Records.
We are facing Problem in the select with single Join. The join is between a
big table and a small table. The small
Monday, June 19, 2006, 07:37:22, Manzoor Ilahi Tamimy wrote:
The Database Size is more than 500 MB.
It contain one table and about 10 million Records.
I had problems with even more records (roughly 25 million, 1GB of
data) and I've stopped efforts to do it in pure sqlite in the end, also
Bill King [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Manzoor Ilahi Tamimy wrote:
We are Using SQLite for one of our project.
The Database Size is more than 500 MB.
It contain one table and about 10 million Records.
Err, for that size, I'd recommend going something heavier, like
firebird. This is not
Dear ALL,
I am really thankful to Bill King, Micha Bieber , Derrell for your valuable
suggestions.
I was really confused that which way should I follow now, because I was sure
that SQLite will work much better. when I got the suggestion about Firebird
then again I went to the comparison page
count(*) is pretty slow in sqlite because it basically does select *
and then counts the results. This means it's looking through your
whole big file.
You can come up with some tricks like keeping a separate count
up-to-date with triggers. There have been some old threads on
optimizing count
Here Is The Schema For these Tables.
CREATE TABLE HVH (
Field1 VARCHAR(8), IDC VARCHAR(4),
Field3 VARCHAR(2), Field4 VARCHAR(4),
Field5 VARCHAR(7), Field6 VARCHAR(8),
Field7 VARCHAR(1), Field8 FLOAT);
CREATE TABLE ITM(
IDC VARCHAR(4),ITEMNAME VARCHAR(20),
26 matches
Mail list logo
