Ah, interesting. However, yes, we need production-ready. Good luck with sqlite4 tho.
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Dan Frankowski <dfran...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > We are comparing to leveldb, which seems to have much better write > > performance even in a limited-memory situation. Of course it offers much > > less than sqlite. It is a partially-ordered key/value store, rather than > a > > relational database. > > > > The default LSM storage layer for SQLite4 gives much better performance > than LevelDB on average. Note that most LevelDB inserts are a little > faster than LSM, however, every now and then LevelDB encounters a really, > really slow insert. SQLite4 LSM avoids these spikes and hence is able to > perform significantly faster in the long run. SQLite4 LSM also gives you > concurrent access and transactions - capabilities that are missing from > LevelDB. > > SQLite4 gives you all the high-level schema and querying capabilities as > SQLite3, with enhancements. > > OTOH, SQLite4 is not anything close to being production ready at this time. > > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > _______________________________________________ > 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
