No I haven't incorporated the gigaslam test yet. This is just the standard non-root file tests.
I'll take a look at those two pragmas and see if that helps. More than 10 times slower is what I'm seeing. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kern Sibbald Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 8:43 AM To: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: Robert Nelson; 'bacula-devel' Subject: Re: [Bacula-devel] [Bacula-users] What a difference a database makes On Friday 08 December 2006 16:21, Robert Nelson wrote: > I've been working on the regression tests for the imminent release of 1.40. > Initially I was using SQLite3 since it has zero maintenance and zero setup > and the tests aren't all that strenuous (at least as far as the database is > concerned). > > > > However, I found a stress run was taking 12 hours on a dual proc machine > with 2 GB of memory. That seemed rather outrageous so I tried with MySQL > and it dropped to an hour and a half. Is that the gigaslam test? > > > > Is SQLite3 really this bad? I can't imagine so or it wouldn't survive. In > that case, there must be something that we are doing or not doing in Bacula > or some problem in our build options that is killing the performance. Well, in some really rough measurements that I did, SQLite version 2 was roughly the same speed as MySQL for the regression scripts. There have been some reports that SQLite might suffer with really big databases compared to MySQL. My equally rough tests with SQLite3 showed it was 4-10 (possibly more) times slower than SQLite version 2. I've never taken the time to try to find out why, so I have never mentioned it to the author. For that reason, I always use SQLite version 2 for my zero maintenance tests -- I also run the regression scripts prior to major releases on MySQL and PostgreSQL, and my "production" database is MySQL. > > > > Is anyone out there using SQLite3? Does anyone have any suggestions on how > we could change the default build defines or database creation scripts to > improve the performance? > > > > If there are any suggestions I'd appreciate getting them quickly so that we > can incorporate them into 1.40. When SQLite3 was first released, I looked into this and seems to me that he handled synchronization differently. The two pragmas that I saw (long ago) that made a difference were: PRAGMA default_synchronous PRAGMA default_cache_size ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
