Arthur, Full source and a small test app are at http://sourceforge.net/projects/adodotnetsqlite
> -----Original Message----- > From: Arthur C. Hsu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:22 AM > To: Tim McDaniel; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [sqlite] In-memory DB performance tuning > > > Thanks for the quick response. Any samples that I can reference? > > -Arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim McDaniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [sqlite] In-memory DB performance tuning > > Arthur, > > I've just done some performance tests using our ADO.NET > provider for SQLite. On a 2GHz P4 system, we get about 35000 > inserts/sec and 175000 reads/sec. This is with a file db > using a transaction, or an in-memory db without transaction, > they both perform the same. The performance is linear, I've > done 10k, 100k, 500k, and 1 million row tests, the insert and > read rate is the same for all. If you are using the C > interface, your results should be comparable (scaled to your > system speed of course), especially considering the slight > interop hit we take for ADO.NET. > > Tim > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Arthur C. Hsu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:16 AM > > To: 'Steve Dekorte' > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [sqlite] In-memory DB performance tuning > > > > > > Yes I know the Berkeley DB or gdbm solutions out there. > > However, I need multicolumns and I need more sophiscated > feature like > > ORDER BY and GROUP BY. > > > > -Arthur > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Dekorte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:38 PM > > To: Arthur C. Hsu > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [sqlite] In-memory DB performance tuning > > > > > > On Nov 17, 2003, at 9:55 PM, Arthur C. Hsu wrote: > > > Any clues that I can further squeeze the performance? Or the > > > limitation is by design? I just can't realize why the > > first 6000 rows > > > are amazing fast but later the speed drops down so dramatically. > > > > Hi Arthur, > > > > If you really need performance and can model your data as key/value > > pairs, then you might consider something like SleepyCat. If > I remember > > correctly, it can read/write around 50K rows per second. > > > > -- Steve > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
