Thanks! If I am able to run real world tests to see if it is perceptibly
faster, I'll report back!
Josh
On 3/4/17, Joshua Grauman <jnf...@grauman.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I am wondering what would be faster for sqlite- Suppose I have a table
with ~400,000 rows and ~20 columns. Suppose I only care about read speed
of the table, and that each of the columns contains 8-bit or 32-bit
integers, and the first column is an ID for the row. Suppose I also have
an index on the first column.
If the ID column is an INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, then the index will be
pointless, will take up space and slow down INSERT and UPDATE
operations, but will never actually be used for queries.
If I only use the first 3 of the columns
regularly and only really want to optimize the speed of reading those
first 3 columns, would it make sense to split the table into two tables,
where the first column (the ID) is identical, but the first table only has
the first 3 columns and the second table has the rest of the columns.
Would that make reading the smaller table with only the 3 columns
noticably faster (due to less page faults/etc.)?
Yes, possibly so. I don't know by how much, but it does make since
that queries would be faster this way.
--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
