I think you can experiment with changing the the working set size limits and see what the effect will be. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc441804
2018-05-27 17:09 GMT+02:00, curmudgeon <tam118...@hotmail.com>: > It seems the array was being optimised away. I had to initialise every value > to get the OS to claim the RAM. Once I did that the timings for the array > were on a par with the vector with the second pass being slower than the > first. > > While that clears up that part of the mystery I'm no closer to a solution. > Going back to the latest set of results why is the assignments in the second > pass taking so much longer when there's still 5+ GB of memory free? > > > > -- > Sent from: http://sqlite.1065341.n5.nabble.com/ > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
