Re: sqlite3

[Óscar Fuentes]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> As for the sqlite part of this: My initial benchmarking of this was
> wrong.  I thought sqlite3 was going to be a real advantage for this
> thing, since I'd benchmarked excellent performance (more than 50K
> updates per second, for instance).  But that's only when not committing
> after every transaction, which we want to do here, really.
>
> But it turns out that sqlite3 is actually slower

Surprise! :-)

> for this particular use
> case than just writing the data to a file (i.e., using the file system
> as the database; one file per value).  So multisession.el now offers two
> backends (`files' and `sqlite'), and defaults to `files'.

I'm pretty sure SQlite is providing stronger persistence guarantees than
the file system.

For persisting data to disk, you either have a fast db or a robust db.
Not both.

OTOH, the "one file per value" part above sounds somewhat scary :-)