4 ms·
While an impressive feat on SQLite’s end, I sincerely hope no engineers see this and take it at face value. The filesystem is slower because it is more flexible
by toxik 7y ago
While an impressive feat on SQLite’s end, I sincerely hope no engineers see this and take it at face value. The filesystem is slower because it is more flexible, and I would imagine that once you have concurrent reads and writes to your thumbnails, a filesystem is to prefer.
- chias 7y agoIMO the point of this article is pretty clearly to answer the developer question "my application needs to read and write data, should I use the filesystem or should I use a sqlite db?" and not make some kind of sweeping "sqlite > fs" claim. In this context, face value is fine.
- zzzcpan 7y agoTheoretically there could exist filesystems that can do well on thumbnails and small files, but in practice this has never been true. Databases are typically better at this and specialized solutions can get you even farther, like over an order of magnitude barrier farther.
- wtallis 7y agoIf you want to support concurrent reads and writes, you probably should pick a particular database engine and understand its concurrency semantics, instead of assuming that whatever filesystem your software lands on will have the semantics you expect.