D. Richard Hipp wrote:
Jakub Adamek wrote: > My experience is that SQLite makes roughly about 3x bigger files than MS > Access. How would this change in 3.0? >
SQLite is very storage efficient in the common case. In a typical table, SQLite will use about 4 or 5 bytes of disk space for every 3 bytes of actual data stored. Put another way, about 60% to 75% of an SQLite database file is the actual data being stored and the other 40% to 25% is overhead.
If you have an example where the overhead is significantly larger than this, I'd be interested in seeing it.
In my case, the on-disk file is about 39MB compared to about 20MB of total file size using mysql. That's very likely from storing ints as strings. But what I'm still trying to figure out (see my original post: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01706.html) is why the space occupied by using :memory: is so much higher than the space on disk... Is it because all temp files, journal files, etc are stored in memory too, and so I'm getting a misleading number from my memory measurements? Does the in-memory rbtree just take up more overhead than the on-disk btree?
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
