Hi Sam,

re your points below:

1. I think I said "innovative", not "revolutionary". The scheme involves
using "dirty bits" rather than a log to record the transactional state of a

2. We plan on publishing all the details of the benchmarks in a few days.
But to answer your question about platforms and tests, the tests were done
using Windows XP SP2 and Linux FC5 on a 3GHz P4 with 1MB, Linux 2.4.31-a9-3
on a 200MHz ARM9 with 64MB, and Freescale Embedded Linux on a 466
MHz 5200 with 256MB. The tests were done with relatively simple tables that
ranged in size from 5000 to 1M records. Inserts, deletes, updates, and
various selects were tested against the SQLite prepare/execute interface and
the DeviceSQL compiled and interpreted interfaces.

3. I'm not surprised to hear that SQLite is substantially faster than MSSQL.
We haven't tested MSSQL, but it makes sense, because both SQLite and
DeviceSQL do not pay the MSSQL price of client server interfaces. That said,
the real question comes down whether SQLite will meet your application
performance needs.  If it does, great. By contrast, DeviceSQL customers have
very stringent performance requirements (some even have a "performance
budget") and often view performance as a critical element in achieving
competitive advantage. If your application doesn't fit that mold, then
SQLite is the right choice for you. SQLite performance is poor compared with
that of DeviceSQL, not poor in general. Our customers have confirmed that  a
number of times.

4. I'm not a big fan of DeviceSQL marketing to date either. I think that's
going to change soon... watch this space.

Best regards,



I found the information you posted to be a good contrast and would love to
learn more, but you didn't include any technical details.  You said you have
atomic commits without a rollback journal and instead use some revolutionary
new way of doing commits.  You said DeviceSQL performs significantly faster
than SQLite, can you show what tests you ran, on what platforms, and your
exact results?  I was particularly skeptical when you said "SQLite
performance, while poor on larger PCs" because in our own testing we've
found SQLite to be 4 times faster than MSSQL after we migrated.  If you're
finding SQLite performance to be poor at all, then most likely your
developers are doing something wrong in testing SQLite which of course would
invalidate your comparison to DeviceSQL.

In short, can you provide more details?  Personally I don't install demo
software just to learn what I should be able to get from the company website
(which I would hope is truly technical details, not just marketing fluff).

I tried searching online for information about DeviceSQL but pretty much
everything I found was regurgitation of marketing data from your company.
The only really compelling thing I found was this.


Best regards,


View this message in context: 
Sent from the SQLite mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to