On Tuesday, 30 May, 2017 10:33, R Smith <rsm...@rsweb.co.za> said: > Keith, I think the OP meant he inserted the values using one single > statement, not one single transaction, as in he did one ginormous INSERT > INTO t(v1, v2...) VALUES (1, 2),(2,3),(..),........,(100000000, > 297829872); - 180MB or so worth... Probably lots of data in few rows, > because he is not hitting any SQLite statement limits - unless those > were disabled. > > Meaning that it is probably just one VDBE program. That's unless I am > reading wrong or assuming wrong from the original post - which is always > possible.
You are correct. I modified the dump so that it would execute one insert per table with all the data in the single insert statement. It is far slower than even inserting each row in its own transaction (autocommit). Of course, that means that some of the insert statements are approaching several hundred megabytes long. It works, but it is very slow. Most of the time is spent in the parser as one would expect. > On 2017/05/30 6:19 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote: > > I find quite the opposite. Using a DUMP file to create a database where > the first test uses the standard dump (which does the load in a single > transaction) is enormously faster than the second one, where the BEGIN > TRANSACTION and COMMIT have been commented out, and thus each insert is > performed in its own transaction. The structure does have the indexes > created while loading ... > > > >> wc -l xmltv.sql > > 5425040 xmltv.sql > > > > 2017-05-30 09:43 446,700,424 xmltv.sql > > > > With the commands all being loaded in a single transaction: > > > >> timethis sqlite test1.db < xmltv.sql > > TimeThis : Command Line : sqlite test1.db > > TimeThis : Start Time : Tue May 30 09:41:12 2017 > > TimeThis : End Time : Tue May 30 09:42:14 2017 > > TimeThis : Elapsed Time : 00:01:02.005 > > > > > > With the commands being in their own individual autocommit transactions: > > --- still running after 10 minutes > > --- still running after 20 minutes > > --- gave up after 30 minutes (and it was only 1/100th through > inserting all the data) > > > > > > The fact of the matter is, that you are much better running larger > transactions than smaller ones. The hardware limits the transaction rate > (max 60 transactions/second on spinning rust -- unless you have lying > hardware that does not flush properly). Apparently somewhat limited on a > machine with a 5GB/s SSD as well...since the write rate was hugely less > than the channel limit, but the CPU was fully consumed. > > > > And just to be clear, putting multiple statements in a transaction does > not mean they are executed as a single VDBE program. They are still > executed one at a time. The only difference is the number of trnsactions > (and hence the commit/flush to disk count). > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
