Jay A. Kreibich wrote: > Yes. Hence the "and this is the important part" comment. Most of > the time when people are building billion-row files, they're building > a new DB by importing a static source of data. If things go wrong, > you just throw out the database and try again.
That's kinda like doing it all in a single big transaction, which I wanted to avoid. :) But my take-away from this is conversation is generally "you're SOL": we are backed by a tree, so we have to update existing nodes to point to the new ones, so we have to touch existing pages on INSERT. Is that about right? It's not in any way a result of my schema? My primary key is a pair of integers A,B. The first column in this particular use case is in the range A = [0, 2million) and the second is in the range B = [0, infinity). We insert records A=0->2million, B=0, then insert records A=0->2million, B=1, etc. Could this have an impact on how many pages need to be touched on INSERT? > It would also help to bump the cache up... That works great until the db size blows through the total RAM on the system, at which point we're of course disk-bound again. At the moment I'm only inserting about 4k rows/second. :/ Eric -- Eric A. Smith I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone. -- Bjarne Stroustrup _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users