Hi Sam, re your points below:
1. I think I said "innovative", not "revolutionary". The scheme involves using "dirty bits" rather than a log to record the transactional state of a page. 2. We plan on publishing all the details of the benchmarks in a few days. But to answer your question about platforms and tests, the tests were done using Windows XP SP2 and Linux FC5 on a 3GHz P4 with 1MB, Linux 2.4.31-a9-3 on a 200MHz ARM9 with 64MB, and Freescale Embedded Linux 2.6.16.11 on a 466 MHz 5200 with 256MB. The tests were done with relatively simple tables that ranged in size from 5000 to 1M records. Inserts, deletes, updates, and various selects were tested against the SQLite prepare/execute interface and the DeviceSQL compiled and interpreted interfaces. 3. I'm not surprised to hear that SQLite is substantially faster than MSSQL. We haven't tested MSSQL, but it makes sense, because both SQLite and DeviceSQL do not pay the MSSQL price of client server interfaces. That said, the real question comes down whether SQLite will meet your application performance needs. If it does, great. By contrast, DeviceSQL customers have very stringent performance requirements (some even have a "performance budget") and often view performance as a critical element in achieving competitive advantage. If your application doesn't fit that mold, then SQLite is the right choice for you. SQLite performance is poor compared with that of DeviceSQL, not poor in general. Our customers have confirmed that a number of times. 4. I'm not a big fan of DeviceSQL marketing to date either. I think that's going to change soon... watch this space. Best regards, Steve Steve, I found the information you posted to be a good contrast and would love to learn more, but you didn't include any technical details. You said you have atomic commits without a rollback journal and instead use some revolutionary new way of doing commits. You said DeviceSQL performs significantly faster than SQLite, can you show what tests you ran, on what platforms, and your exact results? I was particularly skeptical when you said "SQLite performance, while poor on larger PCs" because in our own testing we've found SQLite to be 4 times faster than MSSQL after we migrated. If you're finding SQLite performance to be poor at all, then most likely your developers are doing something wrong in testing SQLite which of course would invalidate your comparison to DeviceSQL. In short, can you provide more details? Personally I don't install demo software just to learn what I should be able to get from the company website (which I would hope is truly technical details, not just marketing fluff). I tried searching online for information about DeviceSQL but pretty much everything I found was regurgitation of marketing data from your company. The only really compelling thing I found was this. http://www.google.com/trends?q=sqlite%2C+devicesql Best regards, Sam - -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Improving-performance-of-SQLite.-Anyone-heard-of-DeviceSQL--tp14280006p14319009.html Sent from the SQLite mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
