5 ms·
WAL mode makes those redundant. Just use WAL mode.
by rbranson 2y ago
WAL mode makes those redundant. Just use WAL mode.
- adamtaylor_13 2y ago…what? No it doesn’t. Go read the article. Every optimization listed addresses a different performance aspect of SQLite.
- rbranson 2y agoHow does busy_timeout address a performance aspect of SQLite?
- fractaledmind 2y agoAs I explain in the post, if you have multiple connections and consistent write load, the timeout will penalize older quereres and noticeably harm your long tail latency
- hu3 2y agoWe all wish you were right. But alas life's not that simple. I suggest reading the manual on the section: "Sometimes Queries Return SQLITE_BUSY In WAL Mode" https://sqlite.org/wal.html#sometimes_queries_return_sqlite_busy_in_wal_mode https://sqlite.org/wal.html#sometimes_queries_return_sqlite_...
- rbranson 2y agoYeah, this almost never happens in practice. It’s not even worth being concerned about.
- nikisweeting 2y agoHappened all the time to me before I did some tuning Depends how much write contention you have and how long open transactions take to finish.
- rbranson 2y agoThe list of circumstances for WAL-mode busy errors is in the doc linked by one of the posters above. It has nothing to do with transactions.
- ncruces 2y agoThat list lists reasons queries might return busy; queries aka. reads. Reads returning busy is rare under WAL, but WAL mode does very little for writer-writer contention.