1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
|
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html><head>
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<link href="sqlite.css" rel="stylesheet">
<title>SQLite Database Speed Comparison</title>
<!-- path= -->
</head>
<body>
<div class=nosearch>
<a href="index.html">
<img class="logo" src="images/sqlite370_banner.gif" alt="SQLite" border="0">
</a>
<div><!-- IE hack to prevent disappearing logo --></div>
<div class="tagline desktoponly">
Small. Fast. Reliable.<br>Choose any three.
</div>
<div class="menu mainmenu">
<ul>
<li><a href="index.html">Home</a>
<li class='mobileonly'><a href="javascript:void(0)" onclick='toggle_div("submenu")'>Menu</a>
<li class='wideonly'><a href='about.html'>About</a>
<li class='desktoponly'><a href="docs.html">Documentation</a>
<li class='desktoponly'><a href="download.html">Download</a>
<li class='wideonly'><a href='copyright.html'>License</a>
<li class='desktoponly'><a href="support.html">Support</a>
<li class='desktoponly'><a href="prosupport.html">Purchase</a>
<li class='search' id='search_menubutton'>
<a href="javascript:void(0)" onclick='toggle_search()'>Search</a>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="menu submenu" id="submenu">
<ul>
<li><a href='about.html'>About</a>
<li><a href='docs.html'>Documentation</a>
<li><a href='download.html'>Download</a>
<li><a href='support.html'>Support</a>
<li><a href='prosupport.html'>Purchase</a>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="searchmenu" id="searchmenu">
<form method="GET" action="search">
<select name="s" id="searchtype">
<option value="d">Search Documentation</option>
<option value="c">Search Changelog</option>
</select>
<input type="text" name="q" id="searchbox" value="">
<input type="submit" value="Go">
</form>
</div>
</div>
<script>
function toggle_div(nm) {
var w = document.getElementById(nm);
if( w.style.display=="block" ){
w.style.display = "none";
}else{
w.style.display = "block";
}
}
function toggle_search() {
var w = document.getElementById("searchmenu");
if( w.style.display=="block" ){
w.style.display = "none";
} else {
w.style.display = "block";
setTimeout(function(){
document.getElementById("searchbox").focus()
}, 30);
}
}
function div_off(nm){document.getElementById(nm).style.display="none";}
window.onbeforeunload = function(e){div_off("submenu");}
/* Disable the Search feature if we are not operating from CGI, since */
/* Search is accomplished using CGI and will not work without it. */
if( !location.origin || !location.origin.match || !location.origin.match(/http/) ){
document.getElementById("search_menubutton").style.display = "none";
}
/* Used by the Hide/Show button beside syntax diagrams, to toggle the */
function hideorshow(btn,obj){
var x = document.getElementById(obj);
var b = document.getElementById(btn);
if( x.style.display!='none' ){
x.style.display = 'none';
b.innerHTML='show';
}else{
x.style.display = '';
b.innerHTML='hide';
}
return false;
}
var antiRobot = 0;
function antiRobotGo(){
if( antiRobot!=3 ) return;
antiRobot = 7;
var j = document.getElementById("mtimelink");
if(j && j.hasAttribute("data-href")) j.href=j.getAttribute("data-href");
}
function antiRobotDefense(){
document.body.onmousedown=function(){
antiRobot |= 2;
antiRobotGo();
document.body.onmousedown=null;
}
document.body.onmousemove=function(){
antiRobot |= 2;
antiRobotGo();
document.body.onmousemove=null;
}
setTimeout(function(){
antiRobot |= 1;
antiRobotGo();
}, 100)
antiRobotGo();
}
antiRobotDefense();
</script>
<h2>Database Speed Comparison</h2>
<font color="red"><b>
Note: This document is very very old. It describes a speed comparison between
archaic versions of SQLite, MySQL and PostgreSQL.
<p>
The numbers here have become meaningless. This page has been retained only
as an historical artifact.
</b></font>
<h3>Executive Summary</h3>
<p>A series of tests were run to measure the relative performance of
SQLite 2.7.6, PostgreSQL 7.1.3, and MySQL 3.23.41.
The following are general
conclusions drawn from these experiments:
</p>
<ul>
<li><p>
SQLite 2.7.6 is significantly faster (sometimes as much as 10 or
20 times faster) than the default PostgreSQL 7.1.3 installation
on RedHat 7.2 for most common operations.
</p></li>
<li><p>
SQLite 2.7.6 is often faster (sometimes
more than twice as fast) than MySQL 3.23.41
for most common operations.
</p></li>
<li><p>
SQLite does not execute CREATE INDEX or DROP TABLE as fast as
the other databases. But this is not seen as a problem because
those are infrequent operations.
</p></li>
<li><p>
SQLite works best if you group multiple operations together into
a single transaction.
</p></li>
</ul>
<p>
The results presented here come with the following caveats:
</p>
<ul>
<li><p>
These tests did not attempt to measure multi-user performance or
optimization of complex queries involving multiple joins and subqueries.
</p></li>
<li><p>
These tests are on a relatively small (approximately 14 megabyte) database.
They do not measure how well the database engines scale to larger problems.
</p></li>
</ul>
<h3>Test Environment</h3>
<p>
The platform used for these tests is a 1.6GHz Athlon with 1GB or memory
and an IDE disk drive. The operating system is RedHat Linux 7.2 with
a stock kernel.
</p>
<p>
The PostgreSQL and MySQL servers used were as delivered by default on
RedHat 7.2. (PostgreSQL version 7.1.3 and MySQL version 3.23.41.)
No effort was made to tune these engines. Note in particular
the default MySQL configuration on RedHat 7.2 does not support
transactions. Not having to support transactions gives MySQL a
big speed advantage, but SQLite is still able to hold its own on most
tests.
</p>
<p>
I am told that the default PostgreSQL configuration in RedHat 7.3
is unnecessarily conservative (it is designed to
work on a machine with 8MB of RAM) and that PostgreSQL could
be made to run a lot faster with some knowledgeable configuration
tuning.
Matt Sergeant reports that he has tuned his PostgreSQL installation
and rerun the tests shown below. His results show that
PostgreSQL and MySQL run at about the same speed. For Matt's
results, visit
</p>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.sergeant.org/sqlite_vs_pgsync.html">http://www.sergeant.org/sqlite_vs_pgsync.html</a>
</blockquote>
<p>
SQLite was tested in the same configuration that it appears
on the website. It was compiled with -O6 optimization and with
the -DNDEBUG=1 switch which disables the many "assert()" statements
in the SQLite code. The -DNDEBUG=1 compiler option roughly doubles
the speed of SQLite.
</p>
<p>
All tests are conducted on an otherwise quiescent machine.
A simple Tcl script was used to generate and run all the tests.
A copy of this Tcl script can be found in the SQLite source tree
in the file <b>tools/speedtest.tcl</b>.
</p>
<p>
The times reported on all tests represent wall-clock time
in seconds. Two separate time values are reported for SQLite.
The first value is for SQLite in its default configuration with
full disk synchronization turned on. With synchronization turned
on, SQLite executes
an <b>fsync()</b> system call (or the equivalent) at key points
to make certain that critical data has
actually been written to the disk drive surface. Synchronization
is necessary to guarantee the integrity of the database if the
operating system crashes or the computer powers down unexpectedly
in the middle of a database update. The second time reported for SQLite is
when synchronization is turned off. With synchronization off,
SQLite is sometimes much faster, but there is a risk that an
operating system crash or an unexpected power failure could
damage the database. Generally speaking, the synchronous SQLite
times are for comparison against PostgreSQL (which is also
synchronous) and the asynchronous SQLite times are for
comparison against the asynchronous MySQL engine.
</p>
<h3>Test 1: 1000 INSERTs</h3>
<blockquote>
CREATE TABLE t1(a INTEGER, b INTEGER, c VARCHAR(100));<br>
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1,13153,'thirteen thousand one hundred fifty three');<br>
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(2,75560,'seventy five thousand five hundred sixty');<br>
<i>... 995 lines omitted</i><br>
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(998,66289,'sixty six thousand two hundred eighty nine');<br>
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(999,24322,'twenty four thousand three hundred twenty two');<br>
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1000,94142,'ninety four thousand one hundred forty two');<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 4.373</td></tr>
<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.114</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 13.061</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.223</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
Because it does not have a central server to coordinate access,
SQLite must close and reopen the database file, and thus invalidate
its cache, for each transaction. In this test, each SQL statement
is a separate transaction so the database file must be opened and closed
and the cache must be flushed 1000 times. In spite of this, the asynchronous
version of SQLite is still nearly as fast as MySQL. Notice how much slower
the synchronous version is, however. SQLite calls <b>fsync()</b> after
each synchronous transaction to make sure that all data is safely on
the disk surface before continuing. For most of the 13 seconds in the
synchronous test, SQLite was sitting idle waiting on disk I/O to complete.</p>
<h3>Test 2: 25000 INSERTs in a transaction</h3>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>
CREATE TABLE t2(a INTEGER, b INTEGER, c VARCHAR(100));<br>
INSERT INTO t2 VALUES(1,59672,'fifty nine thousand six hundred seventy two');<br>
<i>... 24997 lines omitted</i><br>
INSERT INTO t2 VALUES(24999,89569,'eighty nine thousand five hundred sixty nine');<br>
INSERT INTO t2 VALUES(25000,94666,'ninety four thousand six hundred sixty six');<br>
COMMIT;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 4.900</td></tr>
<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 2.184</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 0.914</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.757</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
When all the INSERTs are put in a transaction, SQLite no longer has to
close and reopen the database or invalidate its cache between each statement.
It also does not
have to do any fsync()s until the very end. When unshackled in
this way, SQLite is much faster than either PostgreSQL and MySQL.
</p>
<h3>Test 3: 25000 INSERTs into an indexed table</h3>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>
CREATE TABLE t3(a INTEGER, b INTEGER, c VARCHAR(100));<br>
CREATE INDEX i3 ON t3(c);<br>
<i>... 24998 lines omitted</i><br>
INSERT INTO t3 VALUES(24999,88509,'eighty eight thousand five hundred nine');<br>
INSERT INTO t3 VALUES(25000,84791,'eighty four thousand seven hundred ninety one');<br>
COMMIT;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 8.175</td></tr>
<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 3.197</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 1.555</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 1.402</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
There were reports that SQLite did not perform as well on an indexed table.
This test was recently added to disprove those rumors. It is true that
SQLite is not as fast at creating new index entries as the other engines
(see Test 6 below) but its overall speed is still better.
</p>
<h3>Test 4: 100 SELECTs without an index</h3>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE b>=0 AND b<1000;<br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE b>=100 AND b<1100;<br>
<i>... 96 lines omitted</i><br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE b>=9800 AND b<10800;<br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE b>=9900 AND b<10900;<br>
COMMIT;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 3.629</td></tr>
<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 2.760</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 2.494</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 2.526</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
This test does 100 queries on a 25000 entry table without an index,
thus requiring a full table scan. Prior versions of SQLite used to
be slower than PostgreSQL and MySQL on this test, but recent performance
enhancements have increased its speed so that it is now the fastest
of the group.
</p>
<h3>Test 5: 100 SELECTs on a string comparison</h3>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE c LIKE '%one%';<br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE c LIKE '%two%';<br>
<i>... 96 lines omitted</i><br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE c LIKE '%ninety nine%';<br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE c LIKE '%one hundred%';<br>
COMMIT;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 13.409</td></tr>
<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 4.640</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 3.362</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 3.372</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
This test still does 100 full table scans but it uses
uses string comparisons instead of numerical comparisons.
SQLite is over three times faster than PostgreSQL here and about 30%
faster than MySQL.
</p>
<h3>Test 6: Creating an index</h3>
<blockquote>
CREATE INDEX i2a ON t2(a);<br>CREATE INDEX i2b ON t2(b);
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.381</td></tr>
<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.318</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 0.777</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.659</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
SQLite is slower at creating new indices. This is not a huge problem
(since new indices are not created very often) but it is something that
is being worked on. Hopefully, future versions of SQLite will do better
here.
</p>
<h3>Test 7: 5000 SELECTs with an index</h3>
<blockquote>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE b>=0 AND b<100;<br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE b>=100 AND b<200;<br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE b>=200 AND b<300;<br>
<i>... 4994 lines omitted</i><br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE b>=499700 AND b<499800;<br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE b>=499800 AND b<499900;<br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE b>=499900 AND b<500000;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 4.614</td></tr>
<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.270</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 1.121</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 1.162</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
All three database engines run faster when they have indices to work with.
But SQLite is still the fastest.
</p>
<h3>Test 8: 1000 UPDATEs without an index</h3>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>
UPDATE t1 SET b=b*2 WHERE a>=0 AND a<10;<br>
UPDATE t1 SET b=b*2 WHERE a>=10 AND a<20;<br>
<i>... 996 lines omitted</i><br>
UPDATE t1 SET b=b*2 WHERE a>=9980 AND a<9990;<br>
UPDATE t1 SET b=b*2 WHERE a>=9990 AND a<10000;<br>
COMMIT;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.739</td></tr>
<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 8.410</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 0.637</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.638</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
For this particular UPDATE test, MySQL is consistently
five or ten times
slower than PostgreSQL and SQLite. I do not know why. MySQL is
normally a very fast engine. Perhaps this problem has been addressed
in later versions of MySQL.
</p>
<h3>Test 9: 25000 UPDATEs with an index</h3>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>
UPDATE t2 SET b=468026 WHERE a=1;<br>
UPDATE t2 SET b=121928 WHERE a=2;<br>
<i>... 24996 lines omitted</i><br>
UPDATE t2 SET b=35065 WHERE a=24999;<br>
UPDATE t2 SET b=347393 WHERE a=25000;<br>
COMMIT;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 18.797</td></tr>
<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 8.134</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 3.520</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 3.104</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
As recently as version 2.7.0, SQLite ran at about the same speed as
MySQL on this test. But recent optimizations to SQLite have more
than doubled speed of UPDATEs.
</p>
<h3>Test 10: 25000 text UPDATEs with an index</h3>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>
UPDATE t2 SET c='one hundred forty eight thousand three hundred eighty two' WHERE a=1;<br>
UPDATE t2 SET c='three hundred sixty six thousand five hundred two' WHERE a=2;<br>
<i>... 24996 lines omitted</i><br>
UPDATE t2 SET c='three hundred eighty three thousand ninety nine' WHERE a=24999;<br>
UPDATE t2 SET c='two hundred fifty six thousand eight hundred thirty' WHERE a=25000;<br>
COMMIT;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 48.133</td></tr>
<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 6.982</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 2.408</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 1.725</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
Here again, version 2.7.0 of SQLite used to run at about the same speed
as MySQL. But now version 2.7.6 is over two times faster than MySQL and
over twenty times faster than PostgreSQL.
</p>
<p>
In fairness to PostgreSQL, it started thrashing on this test. A
knowledgeable administrator might be able to get PostgreSQL to run a lot
faster here by tweaking and tuning the server a little.
</p>
<h3>Test 11: INSERTs from a SELECT</h3>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>INSERT INTO t1 SELECT b,a,c FROM t2;<br>INSERT INTO t2 SELECT b,a,c FROM t1;<br>COMMIT;
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 61.364</td></tr>
<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.537</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 2.787</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 1.599</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
The asynchronous SQLite is just a shade slower than MySQL on this test.
(MySQL seems to be especially adept at INSERT...SELECT statements.)
The PostgreSQL engine is still thrashing - most of the 61 seconds it used
were spent waiting on disk I/O.
</p>
<h3>Test 12: DELETE without an index</h3>
<blockquote>
DELETE FROM t2 WHERE c LIKE '%fifty%';
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.509</td></tr>
<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.975</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 4.004</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.560</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
The synchronous version of SQLite is the slowest of the group in this test,
but the asynchronous version is the fastest.
The difference is the extra time needed to execute fsync().
</p>
<h3>Test 13: DELETE with an index</h3>
<blockquote>
DELETE FROM t2 WHERE a>10 AND a<20000;
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.316</td></tr>
<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 2.262</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 2.068</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.752</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
This test is significant because it is one of the few where
PostgreSQL is faster than MySQL. The asynchronous SQLite is,
however, faster then both the other two.
</p>
<h3>Test 14: A big INSERT after a big DELETE</h3>
<blockquote>
INSERT INTO t2 SELECT * FROM t1;
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 13.168</td></tr>
<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.815</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 3.210</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 1.485</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
Some older versions of SQLite (prior to version 2.4.0)
would show decreasing performance after a
sequence of DELETEs followed by new INSERTs. As this test shows, the
problem has now been resolved.
</p>
<h3>Test 15: A big DELETE followed by many small INSERTs</h3>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>
DELETE FROM t1;<br>
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1,10719,'ten thousand seven hundred nineteen');<br>
<i>... 11997 lines omitted</i><br>
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(11999,72836,'seventy two thousand eight hundred thirty six');<br>
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(12000,64231,'sixty four thousand two hundred thirty one');<br>
COMMIT;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 4.556</td></tr>
<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.704</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 0.618</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.406</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
SQLite is very good at doing INSERTs within a transaction, which probably
explains why it is so much faster than the other databases at this test.
</p>
<h3>Test 16: DROP TABLE</h3>
<blockquote>
DROP TABLE t1;<br>DROP TABLE t2;<br>DROP TABLE t3;
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.135</td></tr>
<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.015</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 0.939</td></tr>
<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.254</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
SQLite is slower than the other databases when it comes to dropping tables.
This probably is because when SQLite drops a table, it has to go through and
erase the records in the database file that deal with that table. MySQL and
PostgreSQL, on the other hand, use separate files to represent each table
so they can drop a table simply by deleting a file, which is much faster.
</p>
<p>
On the other hand, dropping tables is not a very common operation
so if SQLite takes a little longer, that is not seen as a big problem.
</p>
<p align="center"><small><i>This page last modified on <a href="https://sqlite.org/docsrc/honeypot" id="mtimelink" data-href="https://sqlite.org/docsrc/finfo/pages/speed.in?m=3bf464cea8e518c51">2014-04-01 15:02:43</a> UTC </small></i></p>
|
