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

List:       sqlite-users
Subject:    Re: [sqlite] SQLite vs. Oracle (parallelized)
From:       Allan Edwards <wallanedwards () gmail ! com>
Date:       2009-02-23 21:38:49
Message-ID: 7dad920902231338x21fa008ak21fdc1bdc86262b0 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Actually, Oracle boots pretty fast and once it is booted up, it is
SUPER fast on insertion.

I have used the following databases professionally for years

* MS SQL Server
* MS SQL Server Embedded
* MS Access
* Oracle (numerous versions)
* MySQL (multiple versions)
* Objectivity
* PostgreSQL
* Sqlite
* DB2

When you talk about performance comparisons your question really needs
to be squared up to what the database is used for.  Are you on a
server, workstation, or embedded?  How large in the database?  How are
the internal algos of the database engine lined up?  What is the
memory footprint?  How did you configure what is configurable in the
database?

The reality is that Sqlite is slower on 1 insert per transaction, but
if you start a transaction, insert a slew of records, then commit, the
database is very fast.

The major platforms that are typically server oriented like Oracle pre
allocate memory and file space so they can "cheat" for a while to be
optimized.  Oh wait, and index space is pre allocated.  Sqlite appears
to be optimized for single file access and as the docs on the website
say, no server full of memory to buffer and give the appearance that
it is faster than it really is on inserts in terms of hard drive write
speed.  The reality is I BET and I would love to know myself Sqlite is
just as fast on inserts to the same hard drive as oracle.

People that are political in slant toward a specific thing tend to
like to make a blanket statement like Oracle is faster than Sqlite but
not inform everyone else as to a specific comparison which makes the
statement full of it! : - )  Are you some kind of political Oracle
covering biggot?  hehehe  Or, do you want another chance to post
something that states you are trying to find the best data storage
solution to deliver sincere value to your client in terms of a
database choice?  Sometimes that choice is Sqlite, but in some cases
it is Oracle instead.

Sqlite is a very Hipp database.

Allan

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:28 PM, D. Richard Hipp <drh@hwaci.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2009, at 3:54 PM, python@bdurham.com wrote:
>
>> Dr. Hipp,
>>
>> When you say "SQLite is way faster than Oracle in a single-user
>> applications" do you mean that SQLite can be faster than Oracle even
>> when Oracle's parallel processing features are being used? For example
>> Oracle's support for parallelization can speed up table loading from
>> an
>> external data source, certain SQL selects, and certain indexing
>> operations.
>
> I don't run Oracle and have no way of verifying the following.  But I
> conjecture that from a cold start, you and launch an application that
> uses SQLite, have it do a dozen or so queries, print out the answer,
> and shut down, all before the Oracle server has even booted up to the
> point where it will accept connections.  Correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Perhaps Oracle will run a gazillion more transactions per second,
> given enough memory and CPUs, and once you get it up and going.  I
> have no way of knowing.  But then again, that isn't really the point
> of SQLite.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Are there any plans to enhance SQLite to support some of Oracle's
>> parallel processing or partitioning capabilities?
>
> Remember:  SQLite is not trying to replace Oracle.  SQLite is trying
> to replace fopen().
>
> For people who are using Oracle as a replacement for fopen() (as
> apparently Angela is) they will likely find that SQLite makes a far
> superior replacement.  Or to put it another way, people who are using
> Oracle for a single-user application (low concurrency) will likely
> find that SQLite works much better for them.  It has been my
> experience that old-time Oracle users are incredulous at this
> statement, until they actually see a live demonstration.  So I won't
> try to argue the point.  It is merely my observation.
>
> On the other hand, nobody things that SQLite is a suitable database
> when you have 1000 separate connections beating on the database all at
> once.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Malcolm
>> _______________________________________________
>> sqlite-users mailing list
>> sqlite-users@sqlite.org
>> http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
>
> D. Richard Hipp
> drh@hwaci.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sqlite-users mailing list
> sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
>



-- 
W Allan Edwards
214-289-2959
_______________________________________________
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]