> For a single threaded application BDB is very bad after I tested. > It takes nearly 2.5 times the amount of time and CPU to do a transaction of > 40MB Data. E.g. If SQLIte did the 40MB data transaction (10000 rows of 4 K) > in 1 second, BDB was taking 2.5 seconds and more CPU as well. I did this in > QT C++. Overall BDB SQL interface is slower than Sqlite for inserts. That > is what I found.
Have you consult this to the BDB forum? BDB doesn't have SQL parsing overhead, so it will be faster in general. On 11/8/13, Raheel Gupta <raheel...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> If you have many core of processors [and big RAM], then I recommend > BDB Sql over Sqlite. Because you can have many processes or threads to > write to a database concurrently. > > For a single threaded application BDB is very bad after I tested. > It takes nearly 2.5 times the amount of time and CPU to do a transaction of > 40MB Data. E.g. If SQLIte did the 40MB data transaction (10000 rows of 4 K) > in 1 second, BDB was taking 2.5 seconds and more CPU as well. I did this in > QT C++. Overall BDB SQL interface is slower than Sqlite for inserts. That > is what I found. > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Simon Slavin <slav...@bigfraud.org> wrote: > >> >> On 7 Nov 2013, at 6:31pm, Raheel Gupta <raheel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Any idea when will SQLite4 be released as stable ? >> >> No. It's not even feature-frozen yet, as far as we know. And whenever >> it >> is, it's incredibly unlikely to have row level locking. >> >> Simon. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
