Hello Simon !
I already did it without using "wal" and the result was the same.
And even for my surprise in one try I stopped at the middle performed an
"analyze" and the performance deteriorated a lot to a point that I
needed to delete the stats tables to get the better performance without
"analyze".
I also tried with the lsm module and got a bit better performance but
with an irregular timing and a bigger disk usage (20%).
Also tested with lmdb with an astonishing insertion rate but with a lot
more disk usage and irregular timing.
Also tested with leveldb with a worse performance and almost twice disk
space usage.
The data distribution on some tables seem to fall into the worst corner
cases for btrees.
Cheers !
On 01/10/16 18:26, Simon Slavin wrote:
On 1 Oct 2016, at 10:18pm, Domingo Alvarez Duarte <mingo...@gmail.com> wrote:
About the vacuum I also understand the need to rewrite the whole database but
I'm not sure if it's really necessary to do almost 5 times the database size in
both reads and writes (also an equivalent amount of I/O happened during
insertions).
Can you try it without
db.exec_dml("PRAGMA wal_checkpoint(FULL);");
and see if that improves time ?
That's the only thing I can see. You're using a nested INSERT OR IGNORE
command I'm not familiar with.
Simon.
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
