Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL Server

Question

Post reply

Single User Performance of SQLite v. SQL Server

TimothyAWiseman

SSCrazy Eights

Points: 8819
More actions
July 18, 2012 at 10:31 pm

#261400

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/

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

ooneill SSC Rookie Points: 39 More actions · Answer 1

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.

iposner Ten Centuries Points: 1161 More actions · Answer 2

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.

ddriver SSC Veteran Points: 255 More actions · Answer 3

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.

charles.byrne SSC Veteran Points: 254 More actions · Answer 4

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

krefior Mr or Mrs. 500 Points: 511 More actions · Answer 5

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.

Mike Good SSCertifiable Points: 7415 More actions · Answer 6

Mike Good

SSCertifiable

Points: 7415

July 19, 2012 at 11:36 am

#1515052

Nice article, very interesting.

TimothyAWiseman SSCrazy Eights Points: 8819 More actions · Answer 7

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/

TimothyAWiseman SSCrazy Eights Points: 8819 More actions · Answer 8

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/

TimothyAWiseman SSCrazy Eights Points: 8819 More actions · Answer 9

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/