On Jun 14, 2018, at 11:00 AM, Bob Friesenhahn <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, Warren Young wrote:
>
>> On Jun 14, 2018, at 8:36 AM, x <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> It is indeed windows Ryan and at times we’re talking 120 secs versus 30 +
>>> 14.
>>
>> Are you using Windows Defender or some other antimalware solution?
>
> Definitely a +1 on this one. Beside Windows Defender, Windows 10's built-in
> file indexing service…
To clarify, I was putting Windows Defender in a separate class from the more
aggressive antimalware packages with that “or”.
While vetting these tests:
https://www.sqlite.org/fasterthanfs.html
we found that disabling Defender only impacted the native file I/O case.
SQLite was just as fast with Defender enabled because the I/Os were internal to
the file, which was kept open throughout the benchmark. Thus, only one check
was presumably made of the SQLite DB, whereas the comparison against separate
files was much slower with Defender enabled, since each of the 100000 test
files had to be checked for malware separately. The numbers reported are with
Defender disabled, but only the non-SQLite numbers are greatly affected.
I am simply speculating that there are antimalware products for Windows that
will slow SQLite down, unlike Defender. I couldn’t name one, having not run
anything but Defender on my Windows boxes since it first came out.
If your application is closing and re-opening the SQLite DB frequently, then I
would expect it to be impacted by Defender. In the tests linked above, the
impact from enabling Defender on the pile-o-files was roughly 10x, but since
it’s a synthetic benchmark, your reported ~3x difference might still be due to
this. If so, keep the DB file open!
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
