> How would you get worse performance? It's optimistic concurrency. If there's a conflict, the client gets SQLITE_BUSY_SNAPSHOT and has to roll back and try ag

> How would you get worse performance? It's optimistic concurrency. If there's a conflict, the client gets SQLITE_BUSY_SNAPSHOT and has to roll back and try again. There's no guarantee the second try will succeed either. They might need to back off (as in, sleep between attempts) and/or entirely stop using "BEGIN CONCURRENT" after n tries. edit: originally also wrote above: In fact, without some way of ensuring transactions write to pages in a consistent order, I don't think there's any guarantee any transaction will make progress. It could degenerate to livelock. ...but I think I was wrong about this part. I think SQLITE_BUSY_SNAPSHOT means another transaction actually committed touching these pages; so progress was made in the system as a whole.