sa + bayes/sqlite _performance_? reasons _not_ to use it?

[snowcrash+spamassassin <sc...@gmail.com>]

i'm interested in using sqlite across my 'entire' mail server env.
currently, exim+dovecot+spamassassin.

i know sqlite _can_ be used for bayes db in sa.  lots of info on that.

any reasons it should NOT be used?

i'm guessing performance, compared to dbm, might be an issue, but
other than a comment in sql/README.bayes:

"NOTE: You may
find that some implementations do not provide a significant advantage
over using the default DBM implementation."

i have not found a performance comparison -- QUESTIONS about it, yes.
but no ANSWERS (yet).

any references, info, comments?

thanks & happy new year.

Re: sa + bayes/sqlite _performance_? reasons _not_ to use it?

[snowcrash+spamassassin <sc...@gmail.com>]

> There are no published performance numbers for using SQLite because it
> is so slow I gave up the tests, deciding it was not even worth the
> effort.  When I say slow, I mean 15+ hrs to do what even the basic SQL
> storage module on MySQL on MySQL could do in < 5 mins.

15+ hours vs 5 minutes ??!!

i don't know the details of what the "what" is, but that's asounding.


> This is most likely because a custom storage module for SQLite is
> needed, some have pointed this out.
>
> Probably not the answer you wanted, but thats about all there is.

if it's a factual answer that's saved me time/effort, i'm very
appreciative!  thanks.

i think, then, i'll stick to dbm for spamassassin, and
consider/evaluate use of sqlite for simple/short lookups in
dovecot+exim. and/or wonder why bother ...

Re: sa + bayes/sqlite _performance_? reasons _not_ to use it?

[Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com>]

snowcrash+spamassassin wrote:
> i'm interested in using sqlite across my 'entire' mail server env.
> currently, exim+dovecot+spamassassin.
> 
> i know sqlite _can_ be used for bayes db in sa.  lots of info on that.
> 
> any reasons it should NOT be used?
> 
> i'm guessing performance, compared to dbm, might be an issue, but
> other than a comment in sql/README.bayes:
> 
> "NOTE: You may
> find that some implementations do not provide a significant advantage
> over using the default DBM implementation."
> 
> i have not found a performance comparison -- QUESTIONS about it, yes.
> but no ANSWERS (yet).
> 
> any references, info, comments?
> 

There are no published performance numbers for using SQLite because it
is so slow I gave up the tests, deciding it was not even worth the
effort.  When I say slow, I mean 15+ hrs to do what even the basic SQL
storage module on MySQL on MySQL could do in < 5 mins.

This is most likely because a custom storage module for SQLite is
needed, some have pointed this out.

Probably not the answer you wanted, but thats about all there is.

Michael