> A few hundred blocks of raw data? Blocksize approx 300K bytes? > Database > created and dropped by the same process? 500 blocks is approx 150M > bytes; why not keep it in a hash table in memory? If you keep it in a > database or the file system, it's going to be washed through your real > memory and pagefile-aka-swap-partition anyway, so just cut out the > middlemen :-)
You're right, but who said I have only 1 DB at a time :-) ? In fact, I have several DBs and I do not known in advance what size it will represent. Perhaps 500MB. And I need RAM for other stuff, so the simplest thing is to use "normal" DBs. Using memory DBs and swapping them aftwerwards would not be smooth. But we are not answering my initial question ! Can I expect some gain in -recompiling SQLite (which options/DEFINEs would help ?) -using custom memory allocators (I am on Win32, in a multi-threaded environment, and yes, "it's bad") -using compression Regards, Pierre Chatelier _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
