sqlite3 vs. sqlite-d

Ozan (O/N/S) via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Thu Jun 8 06:06:55 PDT 2017


On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 at 19:16:07 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 at 19:10:26 UTC, Ozan wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 at 17:51:30 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
>>> Hi guys
>>>
>>> I made a small video.
>>> Mature and heavily optimized C library vs. young D upstart.
>>>
>>> See for yourself how it turns out.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOeVftcVsvI
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Stefan
>>
>> Great. I like it (not the color of the terminal font - 
>> green!!! ;-)
>> What is the cause for different benchmark results (from 30us 
>> up to 48us)?
>>
>> With your small number lines, do you implement the complete 
>> sqlite functionality?
>>
>> Regards, Ozan
>
> It's the Matrix-Movie green ;)
>
> I only implement reading the file format.
> And a few convenience functions for finding a table, iterating 
> by rows, and extracting columns.
>
> The cause for the different results it like the scheduling of 
> the OS.
> Since we do issue quite a large read before iterating.
> most of our time-slice has been used.
> which makes it possible for us to get swapped out during 
> processing.

I see, Matrix style. Red or blue pill, that's the question. ;-)

Your sqlite-d solution would be complete if writing sqlite files 
are also possible. Ignore the SQL parsing stuff, it does not fit 
in a world of fast data processing.

Regards Ozan



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list