Well this does not sound good at all. I would think that SQLite would at least do a better job at queries.
The issues with performance and scalability is of great concern. I was planning on create some new apps that use SQLite, but now I'm wondering is this little database is capable of handle over 2 Gigabytes (GB) of data even though the docs says it can handle up to 2 Terabytes (TB). Does it really make sense to cut back on performance in order to keep the library size small? Will SQLite 3.0 fix these problems? __ Raymond Irving --- "D. Richard Hipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Richard Kuo wrote: > > > > I suspect some unnecessary disk access has to be > the problem...despite > > the small amount of new guide information being > queried out, disk bytes > > read is several times higher than with MS access > and scrolling back over > > previously accessed areas of data is visibly > faster...indicating that > > the disk cache is very favorably impacting the > speed of the queries. > > > > If each of your rows contains 2K of data, that means > each database entry > is using about 2 overflow pages. You can change > this by increasing the > page size. Try recompiling SQLite after changing > the SQLITE_PAGE_SIZE > macro to 16384. > > You might also trying switching to SQLite version > 3.0.0 which will be > released tomorrow. > > Also tomorrow, I will be making available a database > analysis tool > for version 2.8 databases that will help us to > better understand > how information is stored on disk for your database, > and possibly > provide some clues about why you are having > problems. > > -- > D. Richard Hipp -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 704.948.4565 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
