Richard Hipp, Larry Brasfield and Dan Kennedy from the core SQLite engineering team. Patel from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and D. On the other hand, you could have a transactional website running on SQLite (as many people do) instead of MySQL, but expect a lot of downtime.SQLite: Past, Present, and Future is a newly published paper authored by Kevin P. For example, you could have MySQL store Firefox cookies (instead of SQLite), but you'd need that service running all the time. It is designed to replace fopen().Īnd this leads to the main argument (not quantitative, sorry, but qualitative), SQLite is not for all uses, whereas MySQL can cover many varied uses, even if not ideally. The fine people behind SQLite say it themselves:Īnother way to look at SQLite is this: SQLite is not designed to replace Oracle. There are various uses not recommended for SQLite. One thing to remember, despite all the bragging, SQLite is NOT made for data warehousing. So in the end at about 1GB (very ballpark, I know), queries become sluggish in my case. Experience showed that SQLite would slow down in stages, partly due to constant rebalancing of the growing binary trees holding the indexes (and with time-stamped indexes, you just know that tree is going to get rebalanced a lot, yet it is vital to your searches). I've had some tough experience with extra long tables (GPS records, one record per second). SQLite scalability will highly depend on the data used, and their format.
#Sqlite transaction increased speed code#
The site that I mention I released in the first paragraph has been switched back to SQLite, and it's running quite smoothly once I tuned my code in a few places. Instead of writing to (and locking) the file each and every time a write query is issued, the write will only happen once when the transaction completes. Whenever you have to do multiple database writes, put them inside a transaction. However, there is another trick you can use to speed up SQLite: transactions. As I mentioned in my first edit, database indexes dramatically reduce query time, but this is more of a general observation about databases than it is about SQLite. However, the observation of database-locking stands - if you have particularly onerous updates, SQLite performance won't match MySQL or Postgres.Īnother edit: Since I posted this almost 3 months ago I've had the opportunity to closely examine the scalability of SQLite, and with a few tricks it can be quite scalable. This partially caused the slowdown I was experiencing. Moral of the story: only use SQLite for websites where updates to the database happen rarely (less often than every page loaded).Įdit: I just realized that I may not have been fair to SQLite - I didn't index any columns in the SQLite database when I was serving it from a web page. I'm the only one that can change the database) and so it works just fine for concurrent reads. The difference is that the site is static (i.e. That said, I am running another site from SQLite just fine. I just remember slow page loads and occasionally getting a database locked error when trying to execute queries from the shell in sqlite. I soon switched to MySQL and while I haven't had much time to test it out, it seems much more scaleable than SQLite. This is because the entire database was locked every time someone viewed the page because it contained updates/inserts. Unfortunately, even with the modest load that it put on my host it ran quite slowly. Yesterday I released a small site * to track your rep that used a shared SQLite database for all visitors.
0 kommentar(er)
