Dear Dr. Hipp, I'm a Product Manager here at Google and one of the authors of the benchmarks discussed on this thread.
Our intention with the benchmarks was to compare LevelDB with popular storage engines for the specific use case for which it was built, mapping string keys to string values. SQLite has a much wider range of applications than key-value mapping, but it's sometimes used by developers as a key-value store. We wanted to show how LevelDB compares in this specific use case. You raise an excellent point about the superfluous index, and we'll remove the index and update the benchmark results. We chose to keep WAL disabled since that is the default in SQLite, but we will retake the measurements with WAL on. For the results to be comparable, we had to use the same key/value sizes for all of the tests, that's why we keyed on 128-bit blobs rather than 32-bit integers. We'll create a variant of the Kyoto TreeDB and LevelDB benchmarks that key on 32-bit integers, and we'll post those results to this list. We are big fans of SQLite here at Google and did not intend to cast it in a bad light. Thank you for your suggestions, I will follow up with our results soon. Gabor Cselle
_______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
