On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:23 AM, RSmith <rsm...@rsweb.co.za> wrote: > Next up, I proceeded to use the 64-bit DLL in a 64-bit build of the > testbed and redid the DB and data population (just in case the DB itself > was affected by 32-bitness, though unlikely since both DBs were equal in > size and read correctly by both systems afterwards). Execution speeds were > very similar, as were memory ramps. The query seemlessly executed, memory > grew right up to the 6.4GB cache ceiling (above the baseline) without > failing, without reporting an error and returned the correct result set. > Almost an anti-climax, but nothing more to report really, it just worked. I > increased the cache size to ~12GB but the next run topped out at just over > 7GB before spitting out results and releasing the memory, so I assume my > query just did not require more than that. >
And yet they refuse to remove 'lite' from the name ;). -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
