I really just wanted to understand the "why" in the table creation performance.
I can create a database where the table names are instead described as
rows, and the creation of the database is *much* faster. An order of
magnitude faster. The amount of data inserted into a row doesn't
affect performance nearly as much as the amount of data used to
describe a table name. This is the part I'm trying to understand.
-Jared
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:21 PM, James K. Lowden
<jklow...@schemamania.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 18:43:52 -0600
> Jared Albers <jalb...@mymail.mines.edu> wrote:
>
>> When using relatively long table names like `TABLE_{table #}_{some
>> unique identifying name that adds 120 or so characters}`, creation of
>> a database with 10,000 tables takes approximately 60 seconds.
>
> I find this a very strange course of interrogation. Tables are created
> once. Databases with 10,000 tables should be created never (to a
> reasonable approximation).
>
> Is this just an exercise, or is there some horrible real application
> out there being slowed down because it's creating thousands of tables a
> minute?
>
> --jkl
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
