> Select * from a table took just slightly under three hours. > Select * from a reconstructed table (insert into select from) in a new > database took 57 seconds.
I think it's not related to fragmentation, but to fill percentage of b-tree pages. I guess your reconstructed table is much less in total size than your initial one. Also does changing cache_size changes above numbers? What size do these tables have? What bottleneck appears to be in 3-hour query execution? Is it disk thrashing? Pavel On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Dustin Sallings <dus...@spy.net> wrote: > > On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:27, Simon Slavin wrote: > >> Have you actually demonstrated this ? In other words do you have an >> operation that's really 'too slow', but after a VACUUM it's fast enough ? > > > Yes. > > Select * from a table took just slightly under three hours. > > Select * from a reconstructed table (insert into select from) in a new > database took 57 seconds. > > -- > Dustin Sallings > > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@sqlite.org > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
