Hi Henry, A: Because it confuses the reader. Q: Why? A: No. Q: Should I write my response above the quoted reply?
..so please quote properly, as I'm doing in the rest of this mail: On Sep 11 2021, Henry Wertz <hwert...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > What do you think about enabling WAL (Write Ahead Logging)? >> > >> [...] >> > >> > I didn't benchmark anything, but rsync'ing in small files is visibly >> > faster, and the file system is better under load (i.e. I can copy stuff >> in >> > and any simultaneous directory lookups, copying stuff out, etc. is >> > noticeably faster and more responsive.) >> >> As I understand, WAL should not result in any speed-ups, it just >> improves reliability in case of a crash. So I'd be very interested to >> see actual benchmark data here rather than subjective impressions :-). > > I would think you're write -- you're writing your data into a log, then > writing into the DB, that seems like it'd be slower. But... > > WAL docs (https://sqlite.org/wal.html) say "WAL is significantly faster in > most scenarios." (... to be fair they're comparing it to the regular > journal mode, though, not journal_mode=off.) They say WAL provides more > concurrency (readers and writers don't usually block each other... I"m > [...] That's the critical point. S3QL currently does not use a journal at all. So enabling WAL just means that the data is written to the journal before (just like now) the database is updated. So it's not clear to me that this willl result in a speedup. Note also that S3QL currently disables fsync() calls on the journal. Best, -Nikolaus -- GPG Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "s3ql" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to s3ql+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/s3ql/87ee9ukmwt.fsf%40vostro.rath.org.
