Since you just use one table you have no compelling reason to use a DB and could use a simple index file. I would expect your update of 300,000 records in that case to only take a few seconds. The footprint would also be far less. Something like D-ISAM would do the job.
Note that you would forsake the transactional integrity and ACID features of Sqlite for speed and simplicity. JS Marian Aldenhövel wrote: > Hi, > > >>FWIW, I ran your simple example on a Windows XP machine through the Ruby >>driver and got 8 seconds for the update. > > > Scaling that down to the hardware being used, which is a 486-clone with > a 16bit bus showing as running at 31 BogoMIPS in linux (don't know the > clockspeed), propably kills the idea of using SQLite. > > Given SQLites performance data as published there propably also is no > suitable replacement that would allow me to use nice SQL. > > <sniff> > > Ciao, MM _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
