Ingo,
I can't answer that as we have everything in one file. I suspect that in
hindsight, putting a large table in a separate file would have been
advantageous. However the one of cost of dropping a 59GB table has gone
and our daily pruning and vacuuming of the table is a few seconds.
Hindsight is great :)
I brought this up as it was a major issue for us at the time and we
wanted other people to be aware that deleting a table is SQLite is not
as 'cheap' as other systems. This is the first time we have found SQLite
to not be as good as anything else :) Please note that this is not meant
to be criticism of SQLite but rather one of the tradeoffs we know about
about and make. We win for some many other things that we have no
issues.
Rob
On 4 Sep 2019, at 12:02, ingo wrote:
On 4-9-2019 12:24, Rob Willett wrote:
Peng,
Dropping very large tables is time consuming. Dropping a 59GB table
takes quite a long time for us even on fast hardware. Dropping
smaller
tables is faster though.
When using (and dropping) this big tables, would it be of advantage to
put only that one table in a separate database and attach it when
needed. There would be no need then to drop it, one could just detach
and delete the db.
Ingo
_______________________________________________
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
