>> I have a Driver doing this pulling in 32 queries aimed at randomness and >> different tables, much like that would be experienced in typical usage. Best >> performance comes from having 2 separate programs running on 2 separate >> files. > > I'm no expert, but that suggests to me that your bottleneck is access to the > physical file on disk. So your greatest speed increases will come not from > more threads but from a very fast hard disk drive, lots of hard drive > caching, etc..
It's a little surprising to me that with all the same conditions 2 files residing on the same drive have better performance than the same files residing on different drives. Theoretically that shouldn't happen. Pavel On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Simon Slavin <slav...@bigfraud.org> wrote: > > On 12 Aug 2011, at 7:01pm, Drew Kozicki wrote: > >> I have a Driver doing this pulling in 32 queries aimed at randomness and >> different tables, much like that would be experienced in typical usage. Best >> performance comes from having 2 separate programs running on 2 separate >> files. > > I'm no expert, but that suggests to me that your bottleneck is access to the > physical file on disk. So your greatest speed increases will come not from > more threads but from a very fast hard disk drive, lots of hard drive > caching, etc.. > > That's a great set of benchmarks, by the way. > > Simon. > _______________________________________________ > 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
