Have you ever tested such proposal? I believe that doesn't works.
Doug Fajardo wrote: > > One approach might be to split the big, monolithic table into some number > of hash buckets, where each 'bucket' is separate table. When doing a > search, the program calculates the hash and accesses reads only the bucket > that is needed. > > This approach also has the potential for allowing multiple databases, > where tables would be spread across the different databases. The databases > could be spread across multiple drives to improve performance. > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/very-large-SQLite-tables-tp24201098p24218386.html Sent from the SQLite mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
