Going back to the comments from Dr. Hipp regarding WAL vs DELETE mode on F2FS devices, I just wanted to confirm my understanding.
Given a device with F2FS and with sqlite compiled with SQLITE_ENABLE_BATCH_ATOMIC_WRITE, writes with DELETE mode will be considerably faster than with WAL mode. But a relatively long lived transaction that contains a significant amount of computation with lots of reads and writes would still block reads on other threads. So WAL could still be the better choice in some circumstances -- even with F2FS since reads can be happening in parallel. Am I missing something? On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 8:58 PM Keith Medcalf <kmedc...@dessus.com> wrote: > > If you don't mind me asking, what sort of data are you collecting? > Are you the master (ie, scanning) or a slave (getting async data pushed to > you). > Are you "compressing" the returned data (storing only changes exceeding > the deadband) or are you storing every value (or is the source instrument > doing compression)? > > I presume you need to store the TimeStamp, Point, Value and Confidence. > What is the data rate (# Points and Frequency) > > --- > 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 > 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
