On 18 May 2010, at 4:19pm, Black, Michael (IS) wrote: > Interesting...but that logic means that later processes might get their > results before earlier ones.
There is no harm in this. In fact it's a characteristic of parallel systems. If it truly mattered which order the results arrived in, you would be running those queries in sequence rather than parallel. > You'll get fairer resolution of busy contention with a fixed timeout. Just > do 10ms 50 times. That way the first guy in should get the first results. There are two common forms of busy/idle handlers: one is exponential backoff (which is what the OP described) and the other is random backoff). Both will occasionally produce results where the second query gets answered first. Fixed delays don't work very well: if they clashed the first time, they'll probably clash the second time because they both paused for exactly the same amount of time. Simon. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
