On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 17:01:25 -0700 "Keith Medcalf" <kmedc...@dessus.com> wrote:
> SQLite3 however has latencies on the order of microseconds Is that really true? Are there machines for which SQLite's throughput can be measured in transactions per millisecond? I think you're referring to the latency of the function-call overhead, as opposed to using a network interface. But since DBMSs are basically I/O machines, and the most interesting operations involve I/O, it's not clear to me why function-call overhead is a relevant measure. > [SQLite] does not have the same opportunity for opportunistic > behaviour as does a client/server database which may be serving > thousands of concurrent (but different) applications. That I think is the relevant measure. It's the number of clients, not latency, that makes SQLite's lock-the-whole database feasible. On a large machine supporting thousands of clients, the latency advantage would be overwhelmed by the concurrency disadvantage, depending of course on the rate of updates. --jkl _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
