3 ms·
That's a helpful TPS Report. TIL `SAVEPOINT` can occur in a BEGIN ... END SQLite transaction, and that works with optimizing batch size on a particular node wi
by westurner 11mo ago
That's a helpful TPS Report.
TIL `SAVEPOINT` can occur in a BEGIN ... END SQLite transaction, and that works with optimizing batch size on a particular node with a given load.
Is there a solution for SQLite WAL corruption?
From
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45133444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45133444 :
> "PSA: SQLite WAL checksums fail silently and may lose data" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44672902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44672902
> sqlite-parquet-vtable, [...]
- matharmin 11mo agoAs mentioned in those threads, there is no SQLite WAL corruption if you have a working disk & file system. If you don't, then all bets are off - SQLite doesn't protect you against that, and most other databases won't either. And nested transactions (SAVEPOINT) won't have have any impact on this - all it does in this form is reduce the number of transactions you have.
- westurner 11mo ago> working disk & file system And a working ECC or non-ECC RAM bus, and [...]. How bad is recovery from WAL checksum / journal corruption [in SQLite] [with batching at 100k TPS]? And should WAL checksums be used for distributed replication "bolted onto" SQLite? >> (How) Should merkle hashes be added to sqlite for consistency? How would merkle hashes in sqlite differ from WAL checksums? SQLite would probably still be faster over the network with proper Merkleization