SQLServerCentral / Article Discussions / Article Discussions by Author / Discuss content posted by Timothy A Wiseman / Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL Server / Latest Posts

RE: Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL Server

timothyawiseman — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:31:17 GMT

[quote][b]krefior (7/19/2012)[/b][hr]Nice article and thank you for putting together the comparison.One of the reasons that any embedded solution will be faster is related to the overhead of client/server communications... There is a penalty for every connection to SQL Server. For small record sets and optimized code it's very hard to overcome that penalty. I'm curious if instead of 5000 rows if your query were a million rows (Not that much today) would SQL come back out on top?[/quote]I have not tried a million rows yet, but for half a million the basic trend stayed the same.

RE: Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL Server

timothyawiseman — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:29:47 GMT

[quote][b]ddriver (7/19/2012)[/b][hr]If you don't need that stuff and you can just use the embedded data store, just use SQLite and get on your way. This is worse than an apples to oranges comparison. More like apples to an apple stand.SQLite is great for what it does, I have used it many times. But I am not really sure about the utility of comparing it to SQL Server.[/quote]A fair point. The reason I started looking into it is that I had been writing all of my applications against SQL Server until I started getting requests to write applications that would be used by only one at a time for certain niche functions. So, for those I started playing with SQLite, and readily having the option of either I wanted to know the performance implications of the choice.

RE: Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL Server

timothyawiseman — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:26:04 GMT

[quote][b]iposner (7/19/2012)[/b][hr]The whole basis of this article is undermined because the author picked an unsuitable edition of SQL Server for comparison: SQL Server Compact would be the equivalent product and would have made for a more interesting article.[/quote]You make an excellent point. I may have to take a look at compact edition.

RE: Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL Server

Mike Good — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:36:01 GMT

Nice article, very interesting.

RE: Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL Server

krefior — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:10:39 GMT

Nice article and thank you for putting together the comparison.One of the reasons that any embedded solution will be faster is related to the overhead of client/server communications... There is a penalty for every connection to SQL Server. For small record sets and optimized code it's very hard to overcome that penalty. I'm curious if instead of 5000 rows if your query were a million rows (Not that much today) would SQL come back out on top?Of course another reason that embedded solutions are faster has to do with SQLserver being optimized for Muti-User, To compare to an embedded solution the database should be put into Single-User mode.

RE: Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL Server

charles.byrne — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 05:59:37 GMT

I use SQL server Access and Oracle, but I have used SQLite and considering the size and function SQLite. It has it's place and again, the footprint is so small. It is great for embedding in smart phone apps, for retaining settings on webservers and client apps for quick prototypes as well. Another benefit is that it can be used on most platforms.As suggested earlier I would also suggest doing more performance metrics but against SQL CEAlso the newer versions of SQLite (3.7) has Write ahead lockingAnd there's nothing like being able to drag and drop a few files and yourcode runs without having to install SQL server on 150 users desktopswith different OS versions just to read a table. We still lean heavily on MS Access but there is a lot of code maintenance with ever newer releases since we have different versions in use.

RE: Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL Server

ddriver — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 05:34:55 GMT

This really misses the point. SQLite is an embedded data store in a single C library. SQL server is, well... A server. It has an instillation and configuration process, can be accessed by multiple processes, has granular permissions and a whole bunch of very important stuff.If you don't need that stuff and you can just use the embedded data store, just use SQLite and get on your way. This is worse than an apples to oranges comparison. More like apples to an apple stand.SQLite is great for what it does, I have used it many times. But I am not really sure about the utility of comparing it to SQL Server.

RE: Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL Server

iposner — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 04:12:45 GMT

The whole basis of this article is undermined because the author picked an unsuitable edition of SQL Server for comparison: SQL Server Compact would be the equivalent product and would have made for a more interesting article.

RE: Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL Server

ooneill — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 03:02:22 GMT

0.718 secs for 5000 inserts SQL Server (commit once) 0.047 secs for 5000 inserts SQLite (commit once)"it goes from being substantially slower than SQL Server to slightly faster."..... for 'slightly' read 15x faster ! For any 'embedded' application sqlite knocks the spots off SQL server - but it it really is an apples and oranges comparison.

Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL Server

timothyawiseman — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 22:31:33 GMT

Comments posted to this topic are about the item [B]Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL Server[/B]