# 5.2 seems to be slower than 5.1

**URL:** <https://gramps.discourse.group/t/5-2-seems-to-be-slower-than-5-1/6736>\
**Category:** Beta Testing\
**Created:** [January 5, 2025, 2:44am UTC](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/5-2-seems-to-be-slower-than-5-1/6736 "2025-01-05T02:44:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![emyoulation](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/gramps.discourse.group/emyoulation/32/67_2.png) [@emyoulation](https://gramps.discourse.group/u/emyoulation)\
**Post date:** [January 5, 2025, 10:53am UTC](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/5-2-seems-to-be-slower-than-5-1/6736/3 "2025-01-05T10:53:05Z")

</div>

Ok. Thanks for the reference. I was not remembering the [specifics](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/performance-issues-with-gramps/5350/16) on the 5.1 vs. 5.2 performance hit. Which seems to be about the BSDDB backend having much more caching allocated than the SQLite backend.

_(Although the [bogged down discussion on Geneanet](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/geneanet-crosspost-memory-leaks/6618) about trying to troubleshoot the massive use of memory is troublesome. Expanding caching would probably just aggravate their problem.)_

And @Nick-Hall suggested indexing could make an additional improvement.

Is that an accurate summary?

---

_[View the full topic](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/5-2-seems-to-be-slower-than-5-1/6736)._