>Naturally, and of course. The point of my initial post was that I was >still seeing sync operations with synch=NORMAL when I shouldn't have >according to the below docs (now debatable whether they were actually >written to disk or just the os cache). I purposely configured synch >to >NORMAL to avoid the additional sync to the -wal file, but was still >seeing it in operation.
Interesting. In fact I believe I saw the same problem/issue with batch loading of a "bunch" of files into a database. Re-running the update is not a problem but database consistency was. Interestingly, I ended up using savepoint's for each batch and doing one commit to the WAL file. The I/O rate was greatly reduced even though the update (import) touched a whole raft of database pages. This used synchronous=normal. If something crashed the database was consistent and the "load" operation could simply be done again. (I/O rate was reduced from huge multi MB/s with the begin-commit to the KB/s with the savepoints and there did not appear to be any fsyncs other than when the transaction was committed (which also did a checkpoint)). --- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list [email protected] http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
