Are you running Windows anti-virus software? --- Jens Miltner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > we just found that when using file-based temporary storage (compile > time macro definition TEMP_STORE=1) vs. memory-based temporary > storage (TEMP_STORE=2), on Mac OS X, the performance almost doesn't > degrade at all, whereas on Windows, we're getting a huge performance > penalty when using file-based temporary storage. > > We are compiling sqlite 3.3.6 ourselves using pretty much the stock > compile time options, except for TEMP_STORE and THREAD_SAFE=1. > We also found that apparently, database performance with TEMP_STORE=1 > is especially slow when running on Windows XP (SP2). > > OS Versions where Mac OS X 10.4.4 and Windows XP (SP2). > Both machines were equipped with > 1 GB of RAM, but since we're using > file temp storage, memory usage is not really a limit here. Hard disk > performance should be about equal on both machines. > Queries that suffer most from the performance hit are, of course, > those that obviously seem to access temporary tables/views, e.g. > CREATE TEMP VIEW xyz or DROP VIEW xyz. > (needless to say that the very same queries were performed on both > platforms...) > The performance difference between a 2.8GHz Pentium Windows XP > machine and a 2x1GHz Mac OS X PowerPC machine was easily a factor of > 10... When using memory temp storage on Windows, the performance is > about par with the Mac OS X performance when using file temp storage. > > > Anybody got an explanation / solutions / workarounds for this > performance problem? > > Thanks, > </jum>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
