"Artur Reilin" <sql...@yuedream.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:op.u5vlqcps1pq...@rear...
> But that means, if there is a power off or an system crash, > your data which you send at this moment, goes nirvana. Yep, as I wrote at the end of my post: "...in case of an unexpected Close of the App (due to whatever reason), you will lose only the new data which was gathered within the last timer-interval." The Timer-interval in question should therefore not be too large - also with regards to "palpable App-Blocking" in the continously (timer-triggered) "syncing Events" ... but also not too small, to achieve the expected "performance effect" - so, at least "more than only one single new log-record" should be gathered (on average) within the interval, to work with a somewhat better write-efficiency. Would require some experimenting first, which timer-interval works best (depends somewhat on the frequency and size of the incoming new data-records, but also on the underlying storage-media, the DB is hosted on - be it flash-based media, as USB-sticks for example - or "real Hard-Disks"). Olaf Schmidt _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
