So, if I'm reading your message right, the 25 seconds for inserting
200 (that is only 200 messsages) into a database under win 2000 is
correct???
Perhaps it's just my uneducated opinion but your explanation sounds
bogus... Why would the folks who wrote SQLITE show it off as being
so fast
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 20:16 -0800, dan greene wrote:
> When I ran this program on the win2000 machine with NTFS, this loop took on
> the order of 25 seconds as reported in the second printf!
> When I ran the same program on my win98 machine, it took 1.1 seconds.
> putting a begin; and
dan greene wrote:
So, if I'm reading your message right, the 25 seconds for inserting
200 (that is only 200 messsages) into a database under win 2000 is
correct???
Perhaps it's just my uneducated opinion but your explanation sounds
bogus... Why would the folks who wrote SQLITE show it off
Hi Dan,
Perhaps it's just my uneducated opinion but your explanation sounds
bogus... Why would the folks who wrote SQLITE show it off as being so
fast if, under win 2000, it only added 200 records every 25 seconds
It doesnt take anywhere near that long when you wrap the inserts in a
So, if I'm reading your message right, the 25 seconds for inserting 200
(that is only 200 messsages) into a database under win 2000 is correct???
Perhaps it's just my uneducated opinion but your explanation sounds
bogus... Why would the folks who wrote SQLITE show it off as being so fast
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, dan greene wrote:
>I wrote a little program to test SQLITE3, essentially, a program to add 200
>records to a table called notes with one column, subject.
>The loop I used to enter the rows is shown below:
>
>// time the additions
>t1=clock();
>// add some rows
Perhaps one of you can shed some light on this problem I'm having.
First, I am using the SQLITE3 dll, both as provided by sqlite.org and as I
compiled under Visual C++ V6. The problem shows up no matter what dll I'm
using.
One of my machines is a 2.99 GHZ Windows 2000 machine with NTFS.
A
7 matches
Mail list logo
