> Anyone out there know how to correct this undesirable behaviour? > > PS. This only happens over NFS - local DB files behave as expected and fill > the OS page cache.
Don't write your database to NFS. I'd guess that your problem is that NFS driver for some reason thinks that the file was changed on the server (could be as easy as rounding of file modification time) and thus re-reads it from NFS server. And it has nothing to do with SQLite. Pavel On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:27 AM, James Vanns <james.va...@framestore.com> wrote: > (Sorry if this gets posted twice - our damn mail server rewrites outgoing > mails so I had to unsubscribe and re-subscribe under a different Email > address) > > Hello list. I'd like to ask someone with more SQLite experience than me a > simple question. First, some background; > > Distribution: Scientific Linux 6.3 > Kernel: 2.6.32-279.9.1.el6.x86_64 > SQLite version: 3.6.20 > > We have a single process that, given some data, does some processing and > writes it all to a single SQLite DB file. This is a write-once process. When > this task is finished, the file itself is marked as read only (0444). > > This file exists on an NFS share for multiple users to read - nothing further > is ever written to it. The problem we're seeing is that when this DB file is > read from (over NFS) none of the pages are cached (despite ~12GB free for > page cache use) or at least immediately evicted. This is quite detrimental to > performance because our resulting data files (SQLite DB files) are between > 100 to 400 MB in size. We *want* it to be cached - the whole thing. The page > cache would do this nicely for us and allow multiple processes on the same > machine to share that data without any complication. > > I understand that SQLite implements it's own internal page cache but why, on > a standard desktop machine, will it not use the page cache. Is there anyway > of forcing it or bypassing the internal page cache in favour of the job that > Linux already does? I cannot find any reference to O_DIRECT or madvise() or > favdise() etc. in the code. The following PRAGMAs don't help either; > > PRAGMA writable_schema = OFF > PRAGMA journal_mode = OFF > PRAGMA synchronous = OFF > > PRAGMA cache_size = -<size of DB file in kbytes> > > Obviously that last one works - but only for a single process and for the > lifetime of that process. We want the pages to reside in RAM afterwards. > > Anyone out there know how to correct this undesirable behaviour? > > Regards, > > Jim Vanns > > PS. This only happens over NFS - local DB files behave as expected and fill > the OS page cache. > > -- > Jim Vanns > Senior Software Developer > Framestore > _______________________________________________ > 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
