On Tue, 8 May 2018 14:08:05 +0100 Mike Clark <cyberherbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi List! > > I'm developing a project that deals with image files and am > considering storing all the images in the SQLite database itself, > rather than (or in addition to) the file system. Since the > prospective users will probably be dealing with hundreds of gigabytes > in their use of the project, I am wondering if this is an effective > or efficient use of SQLite -- or safe, because of the risk of data > corruption. > > I know the documentation says that SQLite can handle up to 140 TB (do > we know of anyone who is doing this?), so hundreds of gigs is clearly > doable. > > Is it advisable, however? Completly, I use a sqlite fs on some projects with terabyte db size and 0 problems. One has write file once, update occasional and lots of reads (no deletes) workload. Read speed is faster than XFS and UFS2. You need to tune Sqlite to big databases and blob direct read (check the page Dr. Hipps linked for compile options) > ?(Sent this about 2 wks ago, but it never posted to the list and no > moderator response either).? --- --- Eduardo Morras <emorr...@yahoo.es> _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
