Re: [sqlite] SQlite 2.8.16 -> SQLite 3
Mitchell Vincent wrote: So is a 60%ish reduction in DB size from 2.8.16 to 3.3.13 normal? Don't know about "normal" but ISTR version 3 did bring some fairly major improvements in file size. Given that you have your data in both SQLite formats would it not be fairly easy to dump both databases to text files as (say) SQL and diff the text files? Martin - To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: [sqlite] SQlite 2.8.16 -> SQLite 3
On 3/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So is a 60%ish reduction in DB size from 2.8.16 to 3.3.13 normal? > 3.3.13 typically generates database files that are 30-40% smaller than 2.8.16. 60% seems excessive, but is not outside the range of possibility. What kind of data are you storing? Floating point numbers are 8 bytes in 3.3.13 versus 17 bytes in 2.8.16. Something like that could account for the difference. Ahh yes, I bet that's it! My 60% was a bit inaccurate. Now that I actually do the math it's closer to 40-55% depending on the types of data (I have do some that store lots of floating point numbers). I was impressed with SQLite before, now I'm REALLY impressed. Thank you!! -- - Mitchell Vincent - To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: [sqlite] SQlite 2.8.16 -> SQLite 3
"Mitchell Vincent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm converting a bunch of databases from SQLite 2.8.16 to SQLite > 3.3.13 and am seeing something pretty amazing space saving. So good > that it might be too good to be true! > > For example, a 17 meg database is cut down to 7 megs. That's fantastic > if it's just that SQlite is *that* much better at storing the data, > but I'm worried I'm missing things. The row counts for all the tables > match up but it will take more time for me to write something that > compares every field in every data table (there are more than 300 > fields total in this database). > > So is a 60%ish reduction in DB size from 2.8.16 to 3.3.13 normal? > 3.3.13 typically generates database files that are 30-40% smaller than 2.8.16. 60% seems excessive, but is not outside the range of possibility. What kind of data are you storing? Floating point numbers are 8 bytes in 3.3.13 versus 17 bytes in 2.8.16. Something like that could account for the difference. -- D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: [sqlite] SQlite 2.8.16 -> SQLite 3
On 3/12/07, Mitchell Vincent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm converting a bunch of databases from SQLite 2.8.16 to SQLite 3.3.13 and am seeing something pretty amazing space saving. So good that it might be too good to be true! For example, a 17 meg database is cut down to 7 megs. That's fantastic if it's just that SQlite is *that* much better at storing the data, but I'm worried I'm missing things. The row counts for all the tables match up but it will take more time for me to write something that compares every field in every data table (there are more than 300 fields total in this database). So is a 60%ish reduction in DB size from 2.8.16 to 3.3.13 normal? did you get all your indexes over? they are the ones that take up a bunch of space. Make sure you have all the indexes, and then run ANALYZE. You will get a more final sense of space saving at that point. There may or may not be any space saving, and unless you are writing something for a floppy disk, what's the point of getting excited over 10 Mb? My $25 thumbdrive is 2 Gb! -- Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ Nelson Inst. for Env. Studies, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org/education/ - collaborate, communicate, compete = - To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
[sqlite] SQlite 2.8.16 -> SQLite 3
I'm converting a bunch of databases from SQLite 2.8.16 to SQLite 3.3.13 and am seeing something pretty amazing space saving. So good that it might be too good to be true! For example, a 17 meg database is cut down to 7 megs. That's fantastic if it's just that SQlite is *that* much better at storing the data, but I'm worried I'm missing things. The row counts for all the tables match up but it will take more time for me to write something that compares every field in every data table (there are more than 300 fields total in this database). So is a 60%ish reduction in DB size from 2.8.16 to 3.3.13 normal? Thanks!! -- - Mitchell Vincent - To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
