On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 06:43:39 +
Hick Gunter wrote:
> SQLite creates an ephemeral table for the IN list,giving O(log n)
> performance for lookups.
Thank you for pointing that out, Hick. Good to know!
Is there some lower bound on either the size of the IN list or the
number of rows in the t
On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 19:04:50 -0400
Stephen Chrzanowski wrote:
> What I'm gathering from Igor and Ryan is that even though the subquery
> looks to be a self contained entity, it actually isn't?
Right, it actually isn't. All the names mentioned in the outer query
are in scope for the inner one
$
On 2015-03-24 05:43 PM, Rob van der Stel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Currently I am investigating a SQLite performance problem that started to
> occur when we switched from using Windows XP to Windows 8.1 for our
> applications.
> The following information is obtained to comparing two hardware identic
On 3/24/15, Roger Binns wrote:
> On 03/23/2015 04:33 PM, Roger Binns wrote:
>> SQLite really should prevent it from happening by disallowing the
>> deletion of virtual tables with open statements.
>
> Thanks for fixing this. I can confirm that the latest SQLite dev code
> now gives the expected d
Seems about right to me. If I do 1000 inserts on an SQLite database backed on
spinning disk with a 32GB Flash Cache it takes 3 seconds. I would expect that
(assuming your SSD are using a Connor interface) you would see at least twice
that time used for RAID 1.
Is your new Intel RAID driver t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/23/2015 04:33 PM, Roger Binns wrote:
> SQLite really should prevent it from happening by disallowing the
> deletion of virtual tables with open statements.
Thanks for fixing this. I can confirm that the latest SQLite dev code
now gives the expe
Hello,
Currently I am investigating a SQLite performance problem that started to occur
when we switched from using Windows XP to Windows 8.1 for our applications.
The following information is obtained to comparing two hardware identical
systems one running Win XP the other running Win 8.1.
***
On 24 Mar 2015, at 3:43pm, Rob van der Stel wrote:
> Samsung 128 GB SSD
Are those Samsung 830s ? Those things are insanely fast.
FlushFileBuffers() does all the hard work in disk access. Other calls may end
up changing only cached information whereas FlushFileBuffers() has to go mess
with
Rob van der Stel wrote:
>Hello,
>
> Currently I am investigating a SQLite performance problem that started to
> occur when we switched from using Windows XP to Windows 8.1 for our
> applications.
I don't know anything about SQLite, but faced with what you're seeing I
think I'd want to be sure h
The temporary table is creates as
CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE _tempNNN (oid INTEGER PRIMARY KEY)
So the optimizer must know that the values are unique.
10 matches
Mail list logo