On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Black, Michael (IS) <michael.bla...@ngc.com> wrote: > #1 What's the size of your database?
288G, 5000 table, each with ~1.4 million records > #2 What's your cache_size setting? default > #3 How are you loading the data? Are your table inserts interleaved or by > table? Your best bet would be by interleaving during insert so cache hits > would be better. The tables were created all at once, with records inserted evenly, so the content of each table is spread all over the 288G place. I believe this is the reason why cache_size did not help. > Looks to me like you're getting disk thrashing in test3 and test4 which > cache_size could affect also. I am now thinking that if I vacuum the database so that all tables are copied one by one. The performance could be increased dramatically because the content of each table could be read to memory easier. > And are you running your test twice to bypass the initial cache filling of > sqlite? I ran all the tests on tables that have not been processed (cached). Bo _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
