On 10/24/2011 09:20 PM, Bo Peng wrote:
Other than using a SSD to speed up random access, I hope a VACUUM
operation would copy tables one by one so content of the tables would
not scatter around the whole database. If this is the case, disk
caching should work much better after VACUUM... fingers crossed.
VACUUM will defragment, too. Unless your free space is fragmented. So yes,
probably a good move.
Dear all,
I moved the database to another (faster) machine with a SSD and a
regular HD. The performance of the query improved dramatically on the
SSD drive. More specifically, the time to sequentially execute 'select
count(*) from table_XX' on two tables took 17s instead of 7m, and
running the query concurrently on two and four tables took the same 9s
instead of 5m and 13m before. This firmly proved that random disk
access speed was the bottleneck.
Can I ask which file-system you were using on the SSD drive when you
obtained this result?
Thanks,
Dan.
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
