On 13 Dec 2014, at 12:38pm, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > Also, if there are indices available, SQLite attempts to count the smallest > index (it has to guess at which is the smallest by looking at the number > and declared datatypes of the columns) and counting the smallest index > instead, under the theory that a smaller index will involve less I/O.
Would it not be faster to just count the number of pages each index takes up ? Uh ... no. Wow. You really don't like storing counts or sizes, do you ? > To do better than this requires, as far as I know, an incompatible file > format change and/or a performance hit for applications that do not use the > feature. Can you tell us whether the problem exists in SQLite4 ? I know it uses a different format for indexes. I tried checking the documentation but didn't see an answer that didn't involve more work than I felt like doing. Simon. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
