[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       sqlite-users
Subject:    Re: [sqlite] Unhappy with performance
From:       John Stanton <johns () viacognis ! com>
Date:       2008-10-31 13:12:34
Message-ID: 490B11FF.3000103 () viacognis ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Since you just use one table you have no compelling reason to use a DB 
and could use a simple index file.  I would expect your update of 
300,000 records in that case to only take a few seconds.  The footprint 
would also be far less.  Something like D-ISAM would do the job.

Note that you would forsake the transactional integrity and ACID 
features of Sqlite for speed and simplicity.
JS
Marian Aldenhövel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
>>FWIW, I ran your simple example on a Windows XP machine through the Ruby 
>>driver and got 8 seconds for the update.
> 
> 
> Scaling that down to the hardware being used, which is a 486-clone with 
> a 16bit bus showing as running at 31 BogoMIPS in linux (don't know the 
> clockspeed), propably kills the idea of using SQLite.
> 
> Given SQLites performance data as published there propably also is no 
> suitable replacement that would allow me to use nice SQL.
> 
> <sniff>
> 
> Ciao, MM

_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]