My question comes directly from this one, although I'm only interested on UPDATE and only that.
I have an application written in C/C++ which makes heavy use of SQLite, mostly SELECT/UPDATE, on a very frequent interval (about 20 queries every 0.5 to 1 second)
My database is not big, about 2500 records at the moments, here is the table structure:
CREATE TABLE player (
id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
name VARCHAR(64) UNIQUE,
stats VARBINARY,
rules VARBINARY
);
Up to this point I did not used transactions because I was improving the code and wanted stability rather performance.
Then I measured my database performance by merely executing 10 update queries, the following (in a loop of different values):
// 10 times execution of this
UPDATE player SET stats = ? WHERE (name = ?)
where stats is a JSON of exactly 150 characters and name is from 5-10 characters.
Without transactions, the result is unacceptable: - about 1 full second (0.096 each)
With transactions, the time drops x7.5 times: - about 0.11 - 0.16 seconds (0.013 each)
I tried deleting a large part of the database and/or re-ordering / deleting columns to see if that changes anything but it did not. I get the above numbers even if the database contains just 100 records (tested).
I then tried playing with PRAGMA options:
PRAGMA synchronous = NORMAL
PRAGMA journal_mode = MEMORY
Gave me smaller times but not always, more like about 0.08 - 0.14 seconds
PRAGMA synchronous = OFF
PRAGMA journal_mode = MEMORY
Finally gave me extremely small times about 0.002 - 0.003 seconds but I don't want to use it since my application saves the database every second and there's a high chance of corrupted database on OS / power failure.
My C SQLite code for queries is: (comments/error handling/unrelated parts omitted)
// start transaction
sqlite3_exec(db, "BEGIN TRANSACTION", NULL, NULL, NULL);
// query
sqlite3_stmt *statement = NULL;
int out = sqlite3_prepare_v2(query.c_str(), -1, &statement, NULL);
// bindings
for(size_t x = 0, sz = bindings.size(); x < sz; x++) {
out = sqlite3_bind_text(statement, x+1, bindings[x].text_value.c_str(), bindings[x].text_value.size(), SQLITE_TRANSIENT);
...
}
// execute
out = sqlite3_step(statement);
if (out != SQLITE_OK) {
// should finalize the query no mind the error
if (statement != NULL) {
sqlite3_finalize(statement);
}
}
// end the transaction
sqlite3_exec(db, "END TRANSACTION", NULL, NULL, NULL);
As you see, it's a pretty typical TABLE, records number is small and I'm doing a plain simple UPDATE exactly 10 times. Is there anything else I could do to decrease my UPDATE times? I'm using the latest SQLite 3.16.2.
NOTE: The timings above are coming directly from a single
END TRANSACTIONquery. Queries are done into a simple transaction and i'm using a prepared statement.
UPDATE:
I performed some tests with transaction enabled and disabled and various updates count. I performed the tests with the following settings:
VACUUM;
PRAGMA synchronous = NORMAL; -- def: FULL
PRAGMA journal_mode = WAL; -- def: DELETE
PRAGMA page_size = 4096; -- def: 1024
The results follows:
no transactions (10 updates)
- 0.30800 secs (0.0308 per update)
- 0.30200 secs
- 0.36200 secs
- 0.28600 secs
no transactions (100 updates)
- 2.64400 secs (0.02644 each update)
- 2.61200 secs
- 2.76400 secs
- 2.68700 secs
no transactions (1000 updates)
- 28.02800 secs (0.028 each update)
- 27.73700 secs
- ..
with transactions (10 updates)
- 0.12800 secs (0.0128 each update)
- 0.08100 secs
- 0.16400 secs
- 0.10400 secs
with transactions (100 updates)
- 0.088 secs (0.00088 each update)
- 0.091 secs
- 0.052 secs
- 0.101 secs
with transactions (1000 updates)
- 0.08900 secs (0.000089 each update)
- 0.15000 secs
- 0.11000 secs
- 0.09100 secs
My conclusions are that with transactions there's no sense in time cost per query. Perhaps the times gets bigger with colossal number of updates but i'm not interested in those numbers. There's literally no time cost difference between 10 and 1000 updates on a single transaction. However i'm wondering if this is a hardware limit on my machine and can't do much. It seems i cannot go below ~100 miliseconds using a single transaction and ranging 10-1000 updates, even by using WAL.
Without transactions there's a fixed time cost of around 0.025 seconds.
