4 ms·
Interesting, to a small point: > Note: This document is very very old. It describes a speed comparison between archaic versions of SQLite, MySQL and PostgreSQL
by banana_giraffe 4y ago
Interesting, to a small point:
> Note: This document is very very old. It describes a speed comparison between archaic versions of SQLite, MySQL and PostgreSQL.
> The numbers here have become meaningless. This page has been retained only as an historical artifact.
For some context, this page represents the state of things nearly 20 years ago.
- Groxx 4y agoFor single machine workloads, it's probably still largely true. Though so sensitive to details that it's not a particularly useful benchmark. SQLite is often literally unbelievably fast for many operations, and having it operating in the same process gives it a substantially lower minimum that separate dedicated processes can't compete with. But it's not really designed to do things asynchronously (e.g. no background optimizing while idle), or as-efficiently for very large (or strange) operations. Simpler caches and indexes, more straightforward behavior, etc.