Thanks for the correction. Sam
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 6:19 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Samuel Neff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If the images you're storing are larger than the defined page size for > the > > database (which is most likely the case) then you can get better > performance > > and reduced memory consumption by storing the images in the file system > and > > store only paths to the files in the database. This means reading the > large > > amount of data directly from the file system instead of from sqlite's > > linked-list of pages and bypassing the page caching layer (which you > > probably don't want for images anyways) and freeing up more of the page > > cache for real database data. > > > > One would think. And yet experiments suggest otherwise. It > turns out to be faster to read images directly out of SQLite > BLOBs until the image gets up to about 15KB on windows and > up to about 60KB on linux. And even for much larger images, > the performance difference between reading from SQLite and > reading from a file is not that great, so it is a reasonable > thing to do to read from SQLite if transactions are important > to you or if it is just more convenient. > > -- > D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@sqlite.org > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
