-------------------------------------------------- From: "Douglas E. Fajardo" <dfaja...@symark.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:57 AM To: "'General Discussion of SQLite Database'" <sqlite-users@sqlite.org> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Sqlite as a FIFO buffer?
> One-per-second sounds *very* slow - I think I was getting around 10 per > second in my application, although usage patterns may account for the > difference. > > The main cause of the slowdown (IMHO) is inherent in ensuring that changes > are written to physical disk. There are some pragmas that change the > behavior of SQLITE in this respect, but performance improvements in this > area are at some (finite) expense in data integrity. The only other > solution for this might be fast disk drives or a solid-state disk. > > There is also the issue of attempting to synchronize writes to two (or > more) different tasks. My own implementation was pretty primitive - it > simply used the transaction controls in SQLITE. This approach worked, but > I believe that a semaphore or other (external to the SQL language) > signaling mechanism would be a more efficient means of synchronizing > database access between tasks. > > *** Doug F. > > The slowdown on my end is due to this being an embedded application with little RAM, a slow processor, and very slow flash. Chris _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
