On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:11:54 -0800, Eric Scouten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Darren Duncan wrote: > > > At 11:13 PM -0800 1/22/05, Jeff wrote: > > > >> I'm making something that requires XML. (ooh, secretness) > >> It would also be nice to use SQLite with it, but I am confused about > >> how much things I need to put into the database and how much that > >> needs to stay on the file system. > >> You probably didn't understand that. My describing skills suck. > >> Here is the question: Should I store XML files in a database, or > >> should I just put it on the file system. Which would be faster? > > > > > > I would say that it depends on their quantity or use. If you are > > having thousands of little XML files, then store all of them in a > > SQLite database, each one in a SQLite record, where the XML is all in > > a large text field, and other fields in the row contain a few details > > you would look it up by. If you have just a few large XML files, then > > store them in the file system. A database is also useful if you want > > to look up your XML document by multiple criteria rather than just by > > one. -- Darren Duncan > > I haven't experimented specifically with XML data, but I did do some > experiments recently that compared SQLite 3.0.7 vs. the file system as a > binary data cache on a relatively new and high-end Mac OS X system. I > found that SQLite outperformed the file system if the average size of > the data blocks was 20K bytes or less. As the size of the data blocks > grew beyond 20K, the file system was more efficient by an increasingly > large margin. > > -Eric > >
Thanks for the info. That really helped with deciding... I hope I get the same results as you. -- Jeff
