|The stupid question is the question not asked|
Re^5: Threads and DBD::SQLite?by BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Dec 16, 2013 at 10:50 UTC||Need Help??|
erix, I can't thank you enough for do that.
From around N$ = 10_000 and upwards, the threaded version *is* (much) faster.
Weird thing is, varying the number of threads (-T=n) makes no difference to the time required to process all the records:
Leastwise, not when reading the records for the second time. Comment out the "Retrieve the whole lot" block and then things get muddy again:
Once the single-threaded, first pass through the data is removed, it takes twice as long for 4 threads to read all the records as it does for 1 thread.
But then, why does it take the single-threaded, read-all 16 seconds to do so; when it only takes 1 second to start an entirely new thread, make a completely new connection, and then read-all the records?
Many questions and little consistency from which to derive answers at this point. If you can see any other obvious cock-ups I'd be grateful to hear of them.
(Ps. Any feel for how Pg would compare in similar a application?)
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.