--- ArtemGr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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?
In theory, sure.
> It is a usual "pattern" to have a JDBC connection being used from
> multiple "worker" threads.
Connection pools used across multiple threads is a very common JDBC
pattern.
> Do I get it right that this pattern would
> take much more resources with SQLite JDBC driver?
When you say more - relative to what? I can see non-SQLite JDBC
drivers would use a lot less client-side memory because they would not
have such a local memory cache.
SQLite is not the best solution for a high transaction volume database
anyway. Use postgres or mysql instead.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware
protection.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Mailing List: http://groups.google.com/group/sqlitejdbc?hl=en
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
