On Apr 23, 2009, at 10:39 AM, John Stanton wrote: > Running in an unsafe mode for speed does not mean that ultimately > there > will have to be no writes, > > Perhaps you could devise a system where you post writes to a queue and > have another thread or process perform the writes asynchronously. You > would then use otherwise idle machine time for writing and avoid the > "freezing".
FWIW, we are in the process of "productizing" the test_async.c asynchronous VFS for SQLite. The new async VFS might be available as a compile-time option or as a loadable extension on both windows and unix in 3.6.14. If not in that release, then probably in one of the next few releases. The async VFS does all disk writes in a background thread, so that from the main thread writes appear to be nearly instantaneous. Atomicity, Consistency, and Isolation are still guaranteed, though you do sacrifice Durability. In other words, if you cut the power to the machine, your last few transactions that supposedly where committed might get rolled back when power is restored. The async VFS also uses more memory, since the data waiting to be written to disk has to be stored somewhere. It might use a lot more memory if you are committing changes to the database faster than the disk and the background writer thread can handle them. D. Richard Hipp d...@hwaci.com _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
