<a href="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=clk&zid=15220&wd=468&ht=60&pair=as" target="_blank"><img style="border:0px;" src="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=img&zid=15220&wd=468&ht=60&pair=as" alt="i" width="468" height="60"/></a>
Log in
::
Register
::
Not logged in
Home
Tags
Articles
Editorials
Stairways
Forums
Scripts
Videos
Blogs
QotD
Books
Ask SSC
SQL Jobs
Training
Authors
About us
Contact us
Newsletters
Write for us
<a href="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=clk&zid=15491&wd=120&ht=300&pair=as" target="_top"><img style="border:0px;" src="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=img&zid=15491&wd=120&ht=300&pair=as" alt="i" width="120" height="300"/></a>
Recent Posts
Recent Posts
Popular Topics
Popular Topics
Home
Search
Members
Calendar
Who's On
Home
»
Article Discussions
»
Article Discussions by Author
»
Discuss content posted by Timothy A Wiseman
»
Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL...
Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL Server
Rate Topic
Display Mode
Topic Options
Author
Message
timothyawiseman
timothyawiseman
Posted Wednesday, July 18, 2012 10:31 PM
Right there with Babe
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:01 PM
Points: 743,
Visits: 900
Comments posted to this topic are about the item
Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL Server
---
Timothy A Wiseman
SQL Blog:
http://timothyawiseman.wordpress.com/
Post #1331905
ooneill
ooneill
Posted Thursday, July 19, 2012 3:02 AM
Forum Newbie
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, July 23, 2012 3:23 AM
Points: 1,
Visits: 5
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.
Post #1332011
iposner
iposner
Posted Thursday, July 19, 2012 4:12 AM
Grasshopper
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, October 08, 2012 3:14 PM
Points: 19,
Visits: 67
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.
Post #1332057
ddriver
ddriver
Posted Thursday, July 19, 2012 5:34 AM
SSC Rookie
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:53 AM
Points: 28,
Visits: 189
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.
Post #1332096
charles.byrne
charles.byrne
Posted Thursday, July 19, 2012 5:59 AM
SSC Rookie
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 2:16 PM
Points: 30,
Visits: 151
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 CE
Also the newer versions of SQLite (3.7) has Write ahead locking
And there's nothing like being able to drag and drop a few files and your
code runs without having to install SQL server on 150 users desktops
with 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.
"There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all." - Peter Drucker
Post #1332111
krefior
krefior
Posted Thursday, July 19, 2012 11:10 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 09, 2013 8:32 AM
Points: 158,
Visits: 154
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.
Post #1332393
Mike Good
Mike Good
Posted Thursday, July 19, 2012 11:36 AM
SSC Veteran
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:59 AM
Points: 264,
Visits: 633
Nice article, very interesting.
Post #1332422
timothyawiseman
timothyawiseman
Posted Friday, July 20, 2012 4:26 PM
Right there with Babe
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:01 PM
Points: 743,
Visits: 900
iposner (7/19/2012)
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.
You make an excellent point. I may have to take a look at compact edition.
---
Timothy A Wiseman
SQL Blog:
http://timothyawiseman.wordpress.com/
Post #1333277
timothyawiseman
timothyawiseman
Posted Friday, July 20, 2012 4:29 PM
Right there with Babe
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:01 PM
Points: 743,
Visits: 900
ddriver (7/19/2012)
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.
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.
---
Timothy A Wiseman
SQL Blog:
http://timothyawiseman.wordpress.com/
Post #1333279
timothyawiseman
timothyawiseman
Posted Friday, July 20, 2012 4:31 PM
Right there with Babe
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:01 PM
Points: 743,
Visits: 900
krefior (7/19/2012)
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?
I have not tried a million rows yet, but for half a million the basic trend stayed the same.
---
Timothy A Wiseman
SQL Blog:
http://timothyawiseman.wordpress.com/
Post #1333280
« Prev Topic
|
Next Topic »
Permissions
You
cannot
post new topics.
You
cannot
post topic replies.
You
cannot
post new polls.
You
cannot
post replies to polls.
You
cannot
edit your own topics.
You
cannot
delete your own topics.
You
cannot
edit other topics.
You
cannot
delete other topics.
You
cannot
edit your own posts.
You
cannot
edit other posts.
You
cannot
delete your own posts.
You
cannot
delete other posts.
You
cannot
post events.
You
cannot
edit your own events.
You
cannot
edit other events.
You
cannot
delete your own events.
You
cannot
delete other events.
You
cannot
send private messages.
You
cannot
send emails.
You
may
read topics.
You
cannot
rate topics.
You
cannot
vote within polls.
You
cannot
upload attachments.
You
may
download attachments.
You
cannot
post HTML code.
You
cannot
edit HTML code.
You
cannot
post IFCode.
You
cannot
post JavaScript.
You
cannot
post EmotIcons.
You
cannot
post or upload images.
Copyright © 2002-2013 Simple Talk Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy.
Terms of Use.
Report Abuse.
