#
# Run this Tcl script to generate the speed.html file.
#
-set rcsid {$Id: speed.tcl,v 1.9 2003/01/18 22:01:07 drh Exp $ }
+set rcsid {$Id: speed.tcl,v 1.10 2003/01/25 14:25:42 drh Exp $ }
puts {<html>
<head>
for most common operations.
</p></li>
<li><p>
- SQLite 2.7.6 is usually faster than MySQL 3.23.41 (sometimes
- more than twice as fast) though for some operations such as
- full table scans, it can be as much as 30% slower.
+ SQLite 2.7.6 is often faster (sometimes
+ more than twice as fast) than MySQL 3.23.41
+ for most common operations.
</p></li>
<li><p>
SQLite does not execute CREATE INDEX or DROP TABLE as fast as
the other databases. But this as not seen is a problem because
those are infrequent operations.
</p></li>
+<li><p>
+ SQLite works best if you group multiple operations together into
+ a single transaction.
+</p></li>
</ul>
<p>
optimization of complex queries involving multiple joins and subqueries.
</p></li>
<li><p>
- These tests are on a relatively small (approximately 10 megabyte) database.
+ These tests are on a relatively small (approximately 14 megabyte) database.
They do not measure how well the database engines scale to larger problems.
</p></li>
</ul>
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1000,94142,'ninety four thousand one hundred forty two');<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
-<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 3.658</td></tr>
-<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.109</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 7.177</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.266</td></tr>
+<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 4.373</td></tr>
+<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.114</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 13.061</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.223</td></tr>
</table>
-<p>SQLite must close and reopen the database file, and thus invalidate
-its cache, for each SQL statement. In spite of this, the asynchronous
+<p>
+Because it does not have a central server to coordinate access,
+SQLite must close and reopen the database file, and thus invalidate
+its cache, for each transaction. In this test, each SQL statement
+is a separate transaction so the database file must be opened and closed
+and the cache must be flushed 1000 times. In spite of this, the asynchronous
version of SQLite is still nearly as fast as MySQL. Notice how much slower
-the synchronous version is, however. This is due to the necessity of
-calling <b>fsync()</b> after each SQL statement.</p>
+the synchronous version is, however. SQLite calls <b>fsync()</b> after
+each synchronous transaction to make sure that all data is safely on
+the disk surface before continuing. For most of the 13 seconds in the
+synchronous test, SQLite was sitting idle waiting on disk I/O to complete.</p>
<h2>Test 2: 25000 INSERTs in a transaction</h2>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>
CREATE TABLE t2(a INTEGER, b INTEGER, c VARCHAR(100));<br>
-INSERT INTO t2 VALUES(1,298361,'two hundred ninety eight thousand three hundred sixty one');<br>
+INSERT INTO t2 VALUES(1,59672,'fifty nine thousand six hundred seventy two');<br>
<i>... 24997 lines omitted</i><br>
-INSERT INTO t2 VALUES(24999,447847,'four hundred forty seven thousand eight hundred forty seven');<br>
-INSERT INTO t2 VALUES(25000,473330,'four hundred seventy three thousand three hundred thirty');<br>
+INSERT INTO t2 VALUES(24999,89569,'eighty nine thousand five hundred sixty nine');<br>
+INSERT INTO t2 VALUES(25000,94666,'ninety four thousand six hundred sixty six');<br>
COMMIT;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
-<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 5.058</td></tr>
-<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 2.271</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 0.912</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.798</td></tr>
+<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 4.900</td></tr>
+<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 2.184</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 0.914</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.757</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
When all the INSERTs are put in a transaction, SQLite no longer has to
-close and reopen the database between each statement. It also does not
+close and reopen the database or invalidate its cache between each statement.
+It also does not
have to do any fsync()s until the very end. When unshackled in
this way, SQLite is much faster than either PostgreSQL and MySQL.
</p>
-<h2>Test 3: 100 SELECTs without an index</h2>
+<h2>Test 3: 25000 INSERTs into an indexed tablel</h2>
+<blockquote>
+BEGIN;<br>
+CREATE TABLE t3(a INTEGER, b INTEGER, c VARCHAR(100));<br>
+CREATE INDEX i3 ON t3(c);<br>
+<i>... 24998 lines omitted</i><br>
+INSERT INTO t3 VALUES(24999,88509,'eighty eight thousand five hundred nine');<br>
+INSERT INTO t3 VALUES(25000,84791,'eighty four thousand seven hundred ninety one');<br>
+COMMIT;<br>
+
+</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
+<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 8.175</td></tr>
+<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 3.197</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 1.555</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 1.402</td></tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>
+There were reports that SQLite did not perform as well on an indexed table.
+This test was recently added to disprove those rumors. It is true that
+SQLite is not as fast at creating new index entries as the other engines
+(see Test 6 below) but its overall speed is still better.
+</p>
+
+<h2>Test 4: 100 SELECTs without an index</h2>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE b>=0 AND b<1000;<br>
COMMIT;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
-<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 3.657</td></tr>
-<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 3.368</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 4.386</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 4.314</td></tr>
+<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 3.629</td></tr>
+<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 2.760</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 2.494</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 2.526</td></tr>
</table>
+
<p>
This test does 100 queries on a 25000 entry table without an index,
-thus requiring a full table scan. SQLite is about 20% or 30% slower
-than PostgreSQL and MySQL. The reason for this is believed to be
-because SQLite stores all data as strings
-and must therefore do 5 million string-to-number conversions in the
-course of evaluating the WHERE clauses. Both PostgreSQL and MySQL
-store data as binary values where appropriate and can forego
-this conversion effort.
+thus requiring a full table scan. Prior versions of SQLite used to
+be slower than PostgreSQL and MySQL on this test, but recent performance
+enhancements have increased its speed so that it is now the fastest
+of the group.
</p>
-
-<h2>Test 4: 100 SELECTs on a string comparison</h2>
+<h2>Test 5: 100 SELECTs on a string comparison</h2>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE c LIKE '%one%';<br>
COMMIT;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
-<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 15.967</td></tr>
-<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 5.088</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 5.419</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 5.367</td></tr>
+<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 13.409</td></tr>
+<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 4.640</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 3.362</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 3.372</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
This test still does 100 full table scans but it uses
uses string comparisons instead of numerical comparisions.
-SQLite is almost three times faster than PostgreSQL here. But it is
-still 15% slower than MySQL. MySQL appears to be very good
-at doing full table scans.
+SQLite is over three times faster than PostgreSQL here and about 30%
+faster than MySQL.
</p>
-<h2>Test 5: Creating an index</h2>
+<h2>Test 6: Creating an index</h2>
<blockquote>
CREATE INDEX i2a ON t2(a);<br>CREATE INDEX i2b ON t2(b);
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
-<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.431</td></tr>
-<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.340</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 0.814</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.675</td></tr>
+<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.381</td></tr>
+<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.318</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 0.777</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.659</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
-SQLite is slower at creating new indices. But since creating
-new indices is an uncommon operation, this is not seen as a
-problem.
+SQLite is slower at creating new indices. This is not a huge problem
+(since new indices are not created very often) but it is something that
+is being worked on. Hopefully, future versions of SQLite will do better
+here.
</p>
-<h2>Test 6: 5000 SELECTs with an index</h2>
+<h2>Test 7: 5000 SELECTs with an index</h2>
<blockquote>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE b>=0 AND b<100;<br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE b>=100 AND b<200;<br>
SELECT count(*), avg(b) FROM t2 WHERE b>=499900 AND b<500000;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
-<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 5.369</td></tr>
-<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.489</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 1.423</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 1.358</td></tr>
+<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 4.614</td></tr>
+<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.270</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 1.121</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 1.162</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
-This test runs a set of 5000 queries that are similar in form to
-those in test 3. But now instead of being slower, SQLite
-is faster than both PostgreSQL and MySQL.
+All three database engines run faster when they have indices to work with.
+But SQLite is still the fastest.
</p>
-<h2>Test 7: 1000 UPDATEs without an index</h2>
+<h2>Test 8: 1000 UPDATEs without an index</h2>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>
UPDATE t1 SET b=b*2 WHERE a>=0 AND a<10;<br>
COMMIT;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
-<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.740</td></tr>
-<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 8.162</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 0.635</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.608</td></tr>
+<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.739</td></tr>
+<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 8.410</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 0.637</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.638</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
in later versions of MySQL.
</p>
-<h2>Test 8: 25000 UPDATEs with an index</h2>
+<h2>Test 9: 25000 UPDATEs with an index</h2>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>
-UPDATE t2 SET b=271822 WHERE a=1;<br>
-UPDATE t2 SET b=28304 WHERE a=2;<br>
+UPDATE t2 SET b=468026 WHERE a=1;<br>
+UPDATE t2 SET b=121928 WHERE a=2;<br>
<i>... 24996 lines omitted</i><br>
-UPDATE t2 SET b=442549 WHERE a=24999;<br>
-UPDATE t2 SET b=423958 WHERE a=25000;<br>
+UPDATE t2 SET b=35065 WHERE a=24999;<br>
+UPDATE t2 SET b=347393 WHERE a=25000;<br>
COMMIT;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
-<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 32.118</td></tr>
-<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 8.132</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 4.109</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 3.712</td></tr>
+<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 18.797</td></tr>
+<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 8.134</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 3.520</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 3.104</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
As recently as version 2.7.0, SQLite ran at about the same speed as
-MySQL on this test. But recent optimizations to SQLite have doubled
-speed of UPDATEs.
+MySQL on this test. But recent optimizations to SQLite have more
+than doubled speed of UPDATEs.
</p>
-<h2>Test 9: 25000 text UPDATEs with an index</h2>
+<h2>Test 10: 25000 text UPDATEs with an index</h2>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>
-UPDATE t2 SET c='four hundred sixty eight thousand twenty six' WHERE a=1;<br>
-UPDATE t2 SET c='one hundred twenty one thousand nine hundred twenty eight' WHERE a=2;<br>
+UPDATE t2 SET c='one hundred forty eight thousand three hundred eighty two' WHERE a=1;<br>
+UPDATE t2 SET c='three hundred sixty six thousand five hundred two' WHERE a=2;<br>
<i>... 24996 lines omitted</i><br>
-UPDATE t2 SET c='thirty five thousand sixty five' WHERE a=24999;<br>
-UPDATE t2 SET c='three hundred forty seven thousand three hundred ninety three' WHERE a=25000;<br>
+UPDATE t2 SET c='three hundred eighty three thousand ninety nine' WHERE a=24999;<br>
+UPDATE t2 SET c='two hundred fifty six thousand eight hundred thirty' WHERE a=25000;<br>
COMMIT;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
-<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 55.309</td></tr>
-<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 6.585</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 2.474</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 1.800</td></tr>
+<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 48.133</td></tr>
+<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 6.982</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 2.408</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 1.725</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
over twenty times faster than PostgreSQL.
</p>
-<h2>Test 10: INSERTs from a SELECT</h2>
+<p>
+In fairness to PostgreSQL, it started thrashing on this test. A
+knowledgeable administrator might be able to get PostgreSQL to run a lot
+faster here by tweaking and tuning the server a little.
+</p>
+
+<h2>Test 11: INSERTs from a SELECT</h2>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>INSERT INTO t1 SELECT b,a,c FROM t2;<br>INSERT INTO t2 SELECT b,a,c FROM t1;<br>COMMIT;
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
-<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 58.956</td></tr>
-<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.465</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 2.926</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 1.664</td></tr>
+<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 61.364</td></tr>
+<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.537</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 2.787</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 1.599</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
-The poor performance of PostgreSQL in this case appears to be due to its
-synchronous behavior. The CPU was mostly idle the test run. Presumably,
-PostgreSQL was spending most of its time waiting on disk I/O to complete.
-I'm not sure why SQLite performs poorly here. It use to be quicker at this
-test, but the same enhancements that sped up the UPDATE logic seem to have
-slowed down this test.
+The asynchronous SQLite is just a shade slower than MySQL on this test.
+(MySQL seems to be especially adept at INSERT...SELECT statements.)
+The PostgreSQL engine is still thrashing - most of the 61 seconds it used
+were spent waiting on disk I/O.
</p>
-<h2>Test 11: DELETE without an index</h2>
+<h2>Test 12: DELETE without an index</h2>
<blockquote>
DELETE FROM t2 WHERE c LIKE '%fifty%';
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
-<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.365</td></tr>
-<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.849</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 4.005</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.631</td></tr>
+<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.509</td></tr>
+<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.975</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 4.004</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.560</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
The synchronous version of SQLite is the slowest of the group in this test,
-but the asynchronous version is the fastest. SQLite used about the same
-amount of CPU time in both versions; the difference is the extra time needed
-to write information to the disk surface.
+but the asynchronous version is the fastest.
+The difference is the extra time needed to execute fsync().
</p>
-<h2>Test 12: DELETE with an index</h2>
+<h2>Test 13: DELETE with an index</h2>
<blockquote>
DELETE FROM t2 WHERE a>10 AND a<20000;
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
-<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.340</td></tr>
-<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 2.167</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 2.344</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.858</td></tr>
+<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.316</td></tr>
+<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 2.262</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 2.068</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.752</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
however, faster then both the other two.
</p>
-</table>
-<h2>Test 13: A big INSERT after a big DELETE</h2>
+<h2>Test 14: A big INSERT after a big DELETE</h2>
<blockquote>
INSERT INTO t2 SELECT * FROM t1;
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
-<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 12.672</td></tr>
-<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.837</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 3.076</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 1.570</td></tr>
+<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 13.168</td></tr>
+<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.815</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 3.210</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 1.485</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
-Some older versions of SQLite would show decreasing performance after a
-sequence DELETEs followed by new INSERTs. As this test shows, the
+Some older versions of SQLite (prior to version 2.4.0)
+would show decreasing performance after a
+sequence of DELETEs followed by new INSERTs. As this test shows, the
problem has now been resolved.
</p>
-<h2>Test 14: A big DELETE followed by many small INSERTs</h2>
+<h2>Test 15: A big DELETE followed by many small INSERTs</h2>
<blockquote>
BEGIN;<br>
DELETE FROM t1;<br>
-INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1,29676,'twenty nine thousand six hundred seventy six');<br>
+INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1,10719,'ten thousand seven hundred nineteen');<br>
<i>... 11997 lines omitted</i><br>
-INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(11999,71818,'seventy one thousand eight hundred eighteen');<br>
-INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(12000,58579,'fifty eight thousand five hundred seventy nine');<br>
+INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(11999,72836,'seventy two thousand eight hundred thirty six');<br>
+INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(12000,64231,'sixty four thousand two hundred thirty one');<br>
COMMIT;<br>
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
-<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 4.165</td></tr>
-<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.733</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 0.652</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.465</td></tr>
+<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 4.556</td></tr>
+<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 1.704</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 0.618</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.406</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
explains why it is so much faster than the other databases at this test.
</p>
-<h2>Test 15: DROP TABLE</h2>
+<h2>Test 16: DROP TABLE</h2>
<blockquote>
-DROP TABLE t1;<br>DROP TABLE t2;
+DROP TABLE t1;<br>DROP TABLE t2;<br>DROP TABLE t3;
</blockquote><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
-<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.133</td></tr>
-<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.014</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 0.873</td></tr>
-<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.224</td></tr>
+<tr><td>PostgreSQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.135</td></tr>
+<tr><td>MySQL:</td><td align="right"> 0.015</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6:</td><td align="right"> 0.939</td></tr>
+<tr><td>SQLite 2.7.6 (nosync):</td><td align="right"> 0.254</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
projects / thirdparty / sqlite.git / commitdiff
