I fixed this by reducing the cache size from 2000 to 200. I may want to
adjust some more but will continue to test.
Chris
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
I am running into issues where I am running out of memory on my embedded
app. I have stored 10K records in a table. There is an index on a key
field and a sort field. An external program needs to reconcile its data
with the data in this table. It does so 200 records at a time. The code I
am
rom: D. Richard Hipp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 4:26 PM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: RE: [sqlite] Memory usage for queries containing a
> GROUP BY clause
>
> On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 16:08 -0500, Thomas Briggs wrote:
> >Am I wron
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 16:08 -0500, Thomas Briggs wrote:
>Am I wrong in interpreting your comment to mean that this should be
> feasible within the current architecture, and more importantly, feasible
> for someone like me who looked at the SQLite source code for the first
> time yesterday? :)
> You are welcomed to experiment with changes that will store the
> entire result set row in the btree rather than just a pointer.
> If you can produce some performance improvements, we'll likely
> check in your changes.
Am I wrong in interpreting your comment to mean that this should be
5 2:21 PM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: RE: [sqlite] Memory usage for queries containing a
> GROUP BY clause
>
> On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 13:59 -0500, Thomas Briggs wrote:
> >I feel like I'm missing something, but that didn't seem
> to help. I
> > can se
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 13:59 -0500, Thomas Briggs wrote:
>I feel like I'm missing something, but that didn't seem to help. I
> can see in the code why it should be behaving differently (many thanks
> for the hint on where to look, BTW), but the memory usage is unchanged.
>
>I modified
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 11:19 AM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: RE: [sqlite] Memory usage for queries containing a
> GROUP BY clause
>
> On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 10:57 -0500, Thomas Briggs wrote:
> >After posting my question, I found the discussion of h
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 10:57 -0500, Thomas Briggs wrote:
>After posting my question, I found the discussion of how aggregate
> operations are performed in the VDBE Tutorial; that implies that memory
> usage will correspond with the number of unique keys encountered by the
> query, but I
am I oversimplifying
this? :)
Thanks
-Tom
> -Original Message-
> From: D. Richard Hipp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 10:32 AM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Memory usage for queries containing a
> GROUP BY clause
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 10:09 -0500, Thomas Briggs wrote:
>I have a 1GB database containing a single table. Simple queries
> against this table (SELECT COUNT(*), etc.) run without using more than a
> few MBs of memory; the amount used seems to correspond directly with the
> size of the page
Is it possible to limit the amount of memory SQLite uses while
processing an aggregate query?
I have a 1GB database containing a single table. Simple queries
against this table (SELECT COUNT(*), etc.) run without using more than a
few MBs of memory; the amount used seems to correspond
12 matches
Mail list logo
