We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
I have a large-ish database. I am using libsql and not sqlite proper. It has two tables, one with 25M rows and one with 10M. The db file is ~50GB.
Then
time duckdb data.sqld/dbs/default/data "select * from message_queue limit 10" real 0m46.187s user 0m5.659s sys 0m10.910s
The same query takes 60ms from sqlite.
Even just show tables
show tables
time duckdb data.sqld/dbs/default/data "show tables;" ┌─────────────────┐ │ name │ │ varchar │ ├─────────────────┤ │ dicom │ │ message_queue │ │ sqlite_sequence │ └─────────────────┘ real 3m21.493s user 3m29.433s sys 0m10.378s
Using SELECT name FROM sqlite_master WHERE type='table'; from a normal client 55ms.
SELECT name FROM sqlite_master WHERE type='table';
This performance is very surprising. What is going on?
Can't really share much more.
linux
libsql 0.24.31
v1.1.3 19864453f7
cli
JF Pambrun
See linkedin..
main
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
What happens?
I have a large-ish database. I am using libsql and not sqlite proper. It has two tables, one with 25M rows and one with 10M. The db file is ~50GB.
Then
The same query takes 60ms from sqlite.
Even just
show tables
Using
SELECT name FROM sqlite_master WHERE type='table';
from a normal client 55ms.This performance is very surprising. What is going on?
To Reproduce
Can't really share much more.
OS:
linux
SQLite Version:
libsql 0.24.31
DuckDB Version:
v1.1.3 19864453f7
DuckDB Client:
cli
Full Name:
JF Pambrun
Affiliation:
See linkedin..
Have you tried this on the latest
main
branch?Have you tried the steps to reproduce? Do they include all relevant data and configuration? Does the issue you report still appear there?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: