No I haven't yet measured it.. I was only in the process of designing the
database layout...
Given that my queries are very simple, it may be fine to do the
prepare_query every time..
I will do some perf testing and reply back.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Pavel Ivanov wrote:
> > order of 1
> order of 10 to 100 of these tables. When doing operations on these tables, I
> want to avoid having to do a prepare_query every time for performance
> reasons.
Did you measure your performance and find that prepare_query is a bottleneck?
> Since the tables have exactly the same schema, in theor
I know the order of rows is possible and efficient if your query plan is
using the special ROWID:
SELECT ROWID, col1, col2 from Table ORDER BY ROWID.
the ORDER BY is a no-op in this case (see
http://www.sqlite.org/queryplanner.html)
Say you iterate 10 rows, and later want to continue where you le
On 29 Oct 2010, at 4:52pm, john Papier wrote:
> The thing is, I need to keep a cursor to where in the
> table I was last searching, so I can continue the search from where I left
> off, which is why using multiple tables was preferable; i.e., i can track
> the row_id, and then resume the search t
Hi,
I need to create multiple tables all having the same schema. The
number/names of the tables will by dynamic. There would be somewhere in the
order of 10 to 100 of these tables. When doing operations on these tables, I
want to avoid having to do a prepare_query every time for performance
reason
5 matches
Mail list logo
