I fully agree with DRH regarding SQLITE and single user performance. If you need to replace fopen then sqlite is a really really great product. Even if you have some mild concurrency sqlite still does pretty darned good.
Oracle excels when you have many users that require concurrent database changes. Oracle performs row level locking and Multi-Versioning on data blocks to achieve concurrency. Oracle can perform Parallel queries. But the best usage of parallel query is for full table scans where the entire table is read. And there are equally sized segments for scanning by the query slaves. Other wise parallel query probably won't help much. --- On Mon, 2/23/09, D. Richard Hipp <d...@hwaci.com> wrote: > From: D. Richard Hipp <d...@hwaci.com> > Subject: Re: [sqlite] SQLite vs. Oracle (parallelized) > To: "General Discussion of SQLite Database" <sqlite-users@sqlite.org> > Date: Monday, February 23, 2009, 3:28 PM > On Feb 23, 2009, at 3:54 PM, pyt...@bdurham.com wrote: > > > Dr. Hipp, > > > > When you say "SQLite is way faster than Oracle in > a single-user > > applications" do you mean that SQLite can be > faster than Oracle even > > when Oracle's parallel processing features are > being used? For example > > Oracle's support for parallelization can speed up > table loading from > > an > > external data source, certain SQL selects, and certain > indexing > > operations. > > I don't run Oracle and have no way of verifying the > following. But I > conjecture that from a cold start, you and launch an > application that > uses SQLite, have it do a dozen or so queries, print out > the answer, > and shut down, all before the Oracle server has even booted > up to the > point where it will accept connections. Correct me if I am > wrong. > > Perhaps Oracle will run a gazillion more transactions per > second, > given enough memory and CPUs, and once you get it up and > going. I > have no way of knowing. But then again, that isn't > really the point > of SQLite. > > > > > > > > Are there any plans to enhance SQLite to support some > of Oracle's > > parallel processing or partitioning capabilities? > > Remember: SQLite is not trying to replace Oracle. SQLite > is trying > to replace fopen(). > > For people who are using Oracle as a replacement for > fopen() (as > apparently Angela is) they will likely find that SQLite > makes a far > superior replacement. Or to put it another way, people who > are using > Oracle for a single-user application (low concurrency) will > likely > find that SQLite works much better for them. It has been > my > experience that old-time Oracle users are incredulous at > this > statement, until they actually see a live demonstration. > So I won't > try to argue the point. It is merely my observation. > > On the other hand, nobody things that SQLite is a suitable > database > when you have 1000 separate connections beating on the > database all at > once. > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > Malcolm > > _______________________________________________ > > sqlite-users mailing list > > sqlite-users@sqlite.org > > > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > D. Richard Hipp > d...@hwaci.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
