We are currently on v1.3, but we've noticed the big announcements about the 2.0 API and are reviewing our practices with future migration in mind.
One of our applications is INSERT-heavy and also uses SQLite. Standard performance guidance in this situation SQLite is to use the write-ahead log. We found that the baseline guidance in 2.0 to use engine.begin() as the transaction's context manager doesn't cooperate well with the WAL. The WAL is getting checkpointed and deleted at every transaction. The behavior is consistent with failing to cache the connection. Using connection.begin() as the transaction's context manager restores full use of the WAL. Is this a known pitfall when using 2.0-style transactions in the 1.3 release? Or are we misunderstanding the connection pool? Thanks, Jonathan Brandmeyer -- SQLAlchemy - The Python SQL Toolkit and Object Relational Mapper http://www.sqlalchemy.org/ To post example code, please provide an MCVE: Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable Example. See http://stackoverflow.com/help/mcve for a full description. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sqlalchemy/bd49f8f6-d930-4726-8c59-6eea6ed06825n%40googlegroups.com.
