Hi Nikolaus, Interesting to read your findings. I assume you finally disallowed read_uncommitted. Trying to explain why the wait times can get longer, I come to two reasons.
- the time slots where a read-lock is obtained become smaller. This can be significant if there are a lot of transactions with little time in between. With the busy handling by polling, a reader may mis slots. This will sure be improved by Unlock Notification. - the time slots where a read-lock can not be obtained become longer. This can cause problems if there are long-running transaction. The Unlock Notification feature is not going to help here. I still like to share an observation from my own test, which reproduces the first case. I start four reading threads and one writer. Each thread performs a fixed number of cycles. Apart from the wait times, also the overall elapsed time is measured. Indeed the maximum wait-time gets bigger if shared cache mode is enabled. Interestingly, this does not apply to the elapsed time, which is still reduced. Thus, an increase of the maximum wait-time is not necessarily a worse performance. By the way, this was measured on a single-processor system. Hope this is useful to know. Best regards, Edzard. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Nikolaus Rath<nikol...@rath.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I have program that continuously runs several threads (about 4 to 10) > which concurrently read and write to an SQLite database. From > http://www.sqlite.org/sharedcache.html it seems to me that I should be > using shared cache mode. > > Until now, I have set the busy timeout to 500 msec and never had to deal > with SQLITE_BUSY errors. However, there seems to be no corresponding > function for the SQLITE_LOCKED errors that are generated in shared cache > mode. So I changed the code manually sleep for a random amount (0 to 100 > msec) and then try to execute the statement again if it encounters > SQLITE_LOCKED. But now the threads are often waiting for more than 1 > second before they finally get their query executed. > > I suspect this is because the random sleep is wasting a lot of time, > while without shared cache (and with enabled busy timeout) a thread > blocks and gets revived as soon as the lock on the database is > released. > > > How can I avoid this problem? Is there a way to set a busy timeout for > SQLITE_LOCKED as well? Or a more clever method instead of sleeping for > random amounts? Or should I just avoid using shared cache mode? _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
