Ethan Furman wrote: > SQLite has a neat feature where if you give it a the file-name of > ':memory:' the resulting table is in memory and not on disk. I thought > it was a cool feature, but expanded it slightly: any name surrounded by > colons results in an in-memory table. > > I'm looking at the same type of situation with indices, but now I'm > wondering if the :name: method is not pythonic and I should use a flag > (in_memory=True) when memory storage instead of disk storage is desired. For SQLite it seems OK because you make the decision once per database. For dbase it'd be once per table, so I would prefer the flag.
Random > Thoughts? - Do you really want your users to work with multiple dbf files? I think I'd rather convert to SQLite, perform the desired operations using sql, then convert back. - Are names required to manipulate the table? If not you could just omit them to make the table "in-memory". - How about a connection object that may either correspond to a directory or RAM: db = dbf.connect(":memory:") table = db.Table("foo", ...) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list