Re: pysqlite design decisions
Roger Binns <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.python.db.pysqlite.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Gerhard Häring wrote: | I hate that issue. Really hate it. Really REALLY hate it. Because the | question wether you can share pysqlite connections among threads comes up | every so often, and I cannot give an honest answer. | | I searched hard and read http://sqlite.org/faq.html#q8 again, and again. Quite frankly I don't understand why people are so scared of making new sqlite3 db objects. Instead they go to extra-ordinary lengths to try and re-use and share them amongst threads. SQLite is already way faster than other databases. (Ok the data is old, but the ballparks are going to be somewhat similar). ~ http://www.sqlite.org/speed.html At the very least, a network connection does not have to be made and used by a client. Consequently the "overhead" of connection objects is mostly irrelevant. (I do accept there will be rare occasions and workloads where this needs deeper consideration, but for other folks it really is a premature optimization to try and save these objects.) | That's why the check_same_thread is still True by default. I even went as | far as documenting that flag not at all in the sqlite3 module so APSW always does the check and you can't disable it without editing the source code. Roger -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFeRfAmOOfHg372QQRAk8jAKDE4cep+ZJxU+2NU0qDnIJhpeOgPgCeNP+F +FdVxGkveI0Se95pxO6RlxQ= =AAc0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ pysqlite mailing list [email protected] http://lists.initd.org/mailman/listinfo/pysqlite