> SQLiteJDBC does not #define SQLITE_OMIT_SHARED_CACHE, so support > for it is compiled in. However, shared cache is off by default in > sqlite and sqlite3_enable_shared_cache(1) is never called by the > driver, so shared cache remains disabled.
Thanks! So, should I assume, that if I have a cache size of one megabyte, then having 100 threads using an SQLite database might lead to 100 megabyte of "native" memory being used for the cache? Sorry for asking this not on the main SQLite forum but here, but I (1) feel this related to JDBC driver use-cases, and (2) would like to hear your opinion. It is a usual "pattern" to have a JDBC connection being used from multiple "worker" threads. Do I get it right that this pattern would take much more resources with SQLite JDBC driver? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Mailing List: http://groups.google.com/group/sqlitejdbc?hl=en To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
