[rbranson]

WAL mode makes those redundant. Just use WAL mode.

[hu3]

We all wish you were right. But alas life's not that simple.

I suggest reading the manual on the section: "Sometimes Queries Return SQLITE_BUSY In WAL Mode"

https://sqlite.org/wal.html#sometimes_queries_return_sqlite_...

[rbranson]

Yeah, this almost never happens in practice. It’s not even worth being concerned about.

[nikisweeting]

Happened all the time to me before I did some tuning Depends how much write contention you have and how long open transactions take to finish.

[rbranson]

The list of circumstances for WAL-mode busy errors is in the doc linked by one of the posters above. It has nothing to do with transactions.

[ncruces]

That list lists reasons queries might return busy; queries aka. reads.

Reads returning busy is rare under WAL, but WAL mode does very little for writer-writer contention.

[adamtaylor_13]

…what? No it doesn’t. Go read the article. Every optimization listed addresses a different performance aspect of SQLite.

[rbranson]

How does busy_timeout address a performance aspect of SQLite?

[fractaledmind]

As I explain in the post, if you have multiple connections and consistent write load, the timeout will penalize older quereres and noticeably harm your long tail latency