You know, on some platforms, such as Solaris, /tmp can be configured to use
memory instead of disk (called tmpfs on many unix variants).  Are you sure
your /tmp is actually using disk?  It's the default in a lot of setups.

Best 

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-
> boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Black, Michael (IS)
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:35 PM
> To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] SSD with TRIM
> 
> I ran your test on my SSD system with 1M inserts.  I used WAL mode.
> 
> pragma journal_mode=WAL;
> CREATE TABLE [TestTable] (
> [Id] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
> [Text] TEXT
> );
> begin;
> insert.....
> 
> end;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On SSD:
> 
> time sqlite3 gen.db <gen.sql
> wal
> 
> real    3m35.462s
> user    2m14.126s
> sys     1m10.718s
> 
> On same machine but on /tmp
> 
> time sqlite3 gen.db </mnt/ssd/gen.sql
> wal
> real    3m44.259s
> user    2m15.960s
> sys     1m9.437s
> 
> Or did you have some other test in mind?
> 
> 
> 
> Michael D. Black
> 
> Senior Scientist
> 
> Advanced Analytics Directorate
> 
> Advanced GEOINT Solutions Operating Unit
> 
> Northrop Grumman Information Systems
> 
> ________________________________
> From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] on
> behalf of Max Vlasov [max.vla...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 1:24 PM
> To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
> Subject: EXT :Re: [sqlite] SSD with TRIM
> 
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Simon Slavin <slav...@bigfraud.org>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Fast.  Fasty fast.  Speed is high.  INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE all
> > significantly faster.  SELECT is a bit faster, but there's less
> difference.
> >
> >
> Simon, very interesting. Can you make some tests related to internal
> fragmentation? As an advanced user of sqlite,  you probably will easily
> invent your own tests :), but if not  there is a test I used at least once
> 
> INSERT INTO TestTable (id, text) VALUEs (abs(random() % (1 << 48)),
> '12345678901234567...') {the text is about 512 bytes long}
> 
> 1,000,000 inserts should create a 1GB base and the time with general hd
> was
> above 15 minutes, maybe even half an hour. So I'm very interested to see
> was there any progress with overall ssd performance.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Max
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Reply via email to