[sqlite] per-context resources for user-defined function
Hello all, I'm not sure how to manage the lifetime of ancillary data for a user-defined function added by sqlite3_create_function (). Consider a median() function. The data are captured on each xStep, then sorted and the median produced in xFinal. Suppose sqlite3_realloc() fails during one xStep. The computation will be invalidated. Will xStep be called again after it raises an error? Will xFinal be called? If I know xFinal will be called, ISTM I should raise an error there, too. That would also make xFinal a convenient place to reinitalize the data structures. Suppose xStep doesn't fail, but another query is executing simultaneously, also using the median() UDF. I need one data structure per context. I don't see support for that in the SQLite API. Am I expected to maintain my own global associative array? Many thanks for you guidance. --jkl ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] per-context resources for user-defined function
James K. Lowden wrote: > I'm not sure how to manage the lifetime of ancillary data for a > user-defined function added by sqlite3_create_function (). > [...] > Suppose xStep doesn't fail, but another query is executing > simultaneously, also using the median() UDF. I need one data structure > per context. I don't see support for that in the SQLite API. http://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/aggregate_context.html > Suppose sqlite3_realloc() fails during one xStep. The > computation will be invalidated. Will xStep be called again after it > raises an error? xStep does not raise an error. Set a flag, and return an error in xFinish. > Will xFinal be called? Yes. Regards, Clemens ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] per-context resources for user-defined function
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:52 PM, James K. Lowden wrote: > I need one data structure > per context. I don't see support for that in the SQLite API. Am I > expected to maintain my own global associative array? Not if you use sqlite3_aggregate_context(). See http://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/aggregate_context.html HTH Constantine. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] per-context resources for user-defined function
On 11/03/2013 7:47 AM, Clemens Ladisch wrote: James K. Lowden wrote: I'm not sure how to manage the lifetime of ancillary data for a user-defined function added by sqlite3_create_function (). [...] Suppose xStep doesn't fail, but another query is executing simultaneously, also using the median() UDF. I need one data structure per context. I don't see support for that in the SQLite API. http://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/aggregate_context.html Just be careful, because that API doesn't let you resize the allocation... Ryan ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] TCL Test failures on ARM
Any one knows how to fix it ? -- View this message in context: http://sqlite.1065341.n5.nabble.com/TCL-Test-failures-on-ARM-tp67612p67621.html Sent from the SQLite mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] per-context resources for user-defined function
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:47:02 +0100 Clemens Ladisch wrote: > James K. Lowden wrote: > > I'm not sure how to manage the lifetime of ancillary data for a > > user-defined function added by sqlite3_create_function (). > > http://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/aggregate_context.html > > > Will xStep be called again after it raises an error? > > xStep does not raise an error. Set a flag, and return an error in > xFinish. Many thanks, Clemens. That does the trick nicely. --jkl ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] SQLite 3.7.16 beta
Thanks, everyone, for your help in testing 3.7.16. A number of problems have been found and fixed. Because of these problems, the anticipated release of 3.7.16 has been delayed until one week from today (2013-03-18). The draft website, and especially the amalgamation snapshot on the http://www.sqlite.org/draft/download.html page, has been updated. Please continue to test (using the latest snapshot) and let us know as soon as possible if find any further issues. Thanks. On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > The anticipated release date for SQLite 3.7.16 is currently 2013-03-12. > Additional information about the forthcoming 3.7.16 release: > >(1) http://www.sqlite.org/draft/releaselog/3_7_16.html >(2) http://www.sqlite.org/draft/download.html >(3) http://www.sqlite.org/checklists/3071600 > > See a summary of changes at (1). Download a snapshot of the latest code > (in the form of an amalgamation "sqlite3.c" source file) from (2). The > status board at (3) will show the current state of release testing. When > the status board goes all green, we will cut the release. The links above, > and indeed the entire http://www.sqlite.org/draft/ sub-website, will be > updated periodically between now and the official release so check back > frequently. > > Please report any problems encountered. > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
[sqlite] Fuzzy joins
This is a weird request. I have a table of data with no natural primary key. I need to update this table from a prior table, but some of the data fields can change over time, so I must be flexible on how I match. So the matching I need to do is something like this, if Key1 is unique in both table, then match these records if Key1||Key2 is unique in both tables, then match these. if Key1||Key2||Key3 is unique in both tables, then match. if Key1||Key2||Key3||Key4 is unique in both tables, then match. The best I can think is to run 4 queries: UPDATE Table1 Set Value = (Select Value from Table2 where Key1 = Table1.Key1 and Key2 = Table1.Key2 and Key3 = Table1.Key3 and Key4 = Table1.Key4 Group By Key1, Key2, Key3, Key4 Having Count(*)=1); UPDATE Table1 Set Value = (Select Value from Table2 where Key1 = Table1.Key1 and Key2 = Table1.Key2 and Key3 = Table1.Key3 Group By Key1, Key2, Key3 Having Count(*)=1); UPDATE Table1 Set Value = (Select Value from Table2 where Key1 = Table1.Key1 and Key2 = Table1.Key2 Group By Key1, Key2 Having Count(*)=1); UPDATE Table1 Set Value = (Select Value from Table2 where Key1 = Table1.Key1 Group By Key1 Having Count(*)=1); It doesn't check that the match is unique on the Table1 side, but I think I can live with that. Am I missing an obviously better way to do it? A way that can easily be expanded when they come back to me and say if I looked at a fifth column, you'd have been able to match it And if this is something better handled in the application code, can you show me some pseudo-code showing what that algorithm would look like? (Application will be written in Basic.) Thanks, David ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] SQLite 3.7.16 beta
On 11 Mar 2013, at 3:48pm, Richard Hipp wrote: > http://www.sqlite.org/draft/download.html I'm afraid all I can help with is point out a grammatical problem: "and templates (2) is used" I think should have 'templates' in the singular. I add a note that release 3.7.4 was back in 2010. Given that the naming convention has been in place for 2.5 years it may be time to remove the first two sentences from the 'Build Product Names' section. Or it may not. Simon. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
[sqlite] Windows-Specific 2-c-files Amalgamation?
I understand the "deployment" ease and performance advantage of the amalgamation. I like it. Except I can't debug it... 'Cause I'm primarily on Windows, which has a well-known limitation in the way it stores Debug Information (uses 16-bit integer for the line number, so limited to ~64K lines, whereas the amalgamation is much larger). Could there be another amalgamation, perhaps Windows specific, that spreads the sole .c file into 2 or 3? I'm sure it's work, and perhaps even requires another "private" header to share non-public data structures between the two or more C files, but given SQLite's clean architecture and layers (Pager, VDBE, etc...), I'm assuming it's at least "possible", no? Might even not loose much of that little performance advantage the amalgamation brings??? I for one would be able to dive deeper into the code, without resorting to the not-recommended full build (which is more Linux than Windows friendly) I don't have much hope for this (any more than MS fixing its tool-chain...), but I thought I might as well ask ;). Perhaps someone knows a trick or two to work-around that MS debugging issue? Thanks, --DD ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Windows-Specific 2-c-files Amalgamation?
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Dominique Devienne wrote: > Perhaps someone knows > a trick or two to work-around that MS debugging issue? > Run: "make sqlite3-all.c" to build an amalgamation composed of smaller files. See the http://www.sqlite.org/draft/download.html for a "32K" amalgamation of the latest 3.7.16 beta. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Windows-Specific 2-c-files Amalgamation?
Richard...he split is missing the 5 split files. I thought the small size was suspicious. -Original Message- From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hipp Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:42 AM To: General Discussion of SQLite Database Subject: Re: [sqlite] Windows-Specific 2-c-files Amalgamation? On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Dominique Devienne wrote: > Perhaps someone knows > a trick or two to work-around that MS debugging issue? > Run: "make sqlite3-all.c" to build an amalgamation composed of smaller files. See the http://www.sqlite.org/draft/download.html for a "32K" amalgamation of the latest 3.7.16 beta. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Windows-Specific 2-c-files Amalgamation?
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Michael Black wrote: > Richard...he split is missing the 5 split files. I thought the small size > was suspicious. > Fixed. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Windows-Specific 2-c-files Amalgamation?
Can't you just wait to fix things until "patch Tuesday"??? :-) Sheesh...we can't handle things this quickly... -Original Message- From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hipp Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:37 PM To: General Discussion of SQLite Database Subject: Re: [sqlite] Windows-Specific 2-c-files Amalgamation? On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Michael Black wrote: > Richard...he split is missing the 5 split files. I thought the small size > was suspicious. > Fixed. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Changed behavior in SQLite 3.7.16 beta
OK, downloaded and built from this and the problem went away, including the
more
complex case the submitted case was cut down from. We'll run our autotests
again and see if anything else pops up. Thanks for all the hard work!
Peter
- Original Message
> From: Richard Hipp
> To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
> Sent: Sat, March 9, 2013 7:58:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Changed behavior in SQLite 3.7.16 beta
>
> Please try again with the latest 3.7.16 beta. You can download an
> amalgamation snapshot from http://www.sqlite.org/test/download.html
>
> The testing checklist (http://www.sqlite.org/checklists/3071600) has been
> restarted once again on account of this issue.
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Peter Aronson wrote:
>
> > I've encountered the following changed behavior (which I believe is a
> > bug). The
> > following script works at 3.7.15.2 but fails at 3.6.16 beta:
> >
> > create table qa_data_edit (str_col text,int_col integer,rowidcol integer);
> > insert into qa_data_edit values ('this',1000,1);
> > insert into qa_data_edit values ('that',3000,2);
> > create view qa_data_edit_evw as select str_col,int_col,rowidcol from
> > qa_data_edit;
> >
> > create trigger qa_data_edit_view_update instead of update on
> > qa_data_edit_evw
> > BEGIN
> > update or replace qa_data_edit
> > set str_col = new.str_col,
> > int_col = new.int_col
> > where rowidcol = old.rowidcol;
> > END;
> > select * from qa_data_edit;
> > update main.qa_data_edit_evw
> > set str_col = 'fred',
> > int_col = 5000
> > where main.qa_data_edit_evw.rowidcol = 1;
> > select * from qa_data_edit;
> >
> > Output:
> >
> > SQLite version 3.7.16 2013-03-06 01:55:27
> > Enter ".help" for instructions
> > Enter SQL statements terminated with a ";"
> > sqlite> .read test.sql
> > this|1000|1
> > that|3000|2
> > Error: near line 17: no such column: main.qa_data_edit_evw.rowidcol
> > this|1000|1
> > that|3000|2
> >
> > SQLite version 3.7.15.2 2013-01-09 11:53:05
> > Enter ".help" for instructions
> > Enter SQL statements terminated with a ";"
> > sqlite> .read test.sql
> > this|1000|1
> > that|3000|2
> > fred|5000|1
> > that|3000|2
> >
> > Using an unqualified ROWIDCOL in the update causes the error to go away.
> > However, database.table.column is a legal expression element according the
> > the
> > syntax diagrams.
> >
> > Tested on Windows XP and Solaris 9.
> >
> > Peter
> > ___
> > sqlite-users mailing list
> > sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
> >
>
>
>
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> d...@sqlite.org
> ___
> sqlite-users mailing list
> sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
>
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] SQLite 3.7.16 beta
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > > Please report any problems encountered. > > > > -- > > D. Richard Hipp > > d...@sqlite.org Some lunchtime reading resulted in this minutiae: http://www.sqlite.org/draft/atomiccommit.html S//from the one describe in this article//from the one described in this article// S//if a power lose or OS crash occurs//if a power loss or OS crash occurs// S//This would make it appears as if//This would make it appear as if// S//The idea behind a reserved locks is//The idea behind a reserved lock is// S//takes up most the time required//takes up most of the time required// S//described later make it appears as if//described later make it appear as if// S//The rollback journal exist.//The rollback journal exists.// S//write that content back to were it//write that content back to where it// S//where deleting a file is expense.//where deleting a file is expensive.// S//journal is no long hot after this step.//journal is no longer hot after this step.// S//prevents other processes for accessing//prevents other processes from accessing// S//device manufactures with more control//device manufacturers with more control// S//during step 3.10 above//during step 3.10 above// S//in step 3.7 is//in step 3.7 is// S//in section 3.2 above//in section 3.2 above// S//at step 4.2//at step 4.2 CHEERS -- -- -- --Ô¿Ô-- K e V i N ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Fuzzy joins
On Mar 11, 2013, at 4:54 PM, David Bicking wrote: > Am I missing an obviously better way to do it? > A way that can easily be expanded when they come back to me and say if I > looked at a fifth column, you'd have been able to match it…. As they stand, your updates will always match whatever was computed last as you don't have a where clause in your update statements. Most likely not what you want. If only SQLite had a merge statement, this would all be much easier. Anyhow, personally, I would decompose the problem into two steps: (1) How to join Table1 to Table2 considering these various keys. (2) How to update Table2 with Table2's value given (1) For (1), you have two main options: (a) keys concatenation or (b) a series of left joins (warning: pseudo code ahead) (a) selectTable1.row_id as t1_row_id, Table2.value from ( select rowid as row_id, key1 || '.' || key2 || '.' || key3 || '.' || key4 || '.' || key5 as key fromTable1 ) asTable1 left join ( select rowid as row_id, key1 || '.' || key2 || '.' || key3 || '.' || key4 || '.' || key5 as key, value fromTable2 ) asTable2 onTable2.key = Table1.key The above will always result in two full table scan. (b) selectTable1.rowid as t1_row_id, coalesce( Level5.value, Level4.value, Level3.value, Level2.value, Level1.value ) as value from Table1 left join Table2 asLevel5 onLevel5.key1 = Table1.key1 and Level5.key2 = Table1.key2 and Level5.key3 = Table1.key3 and Level5.key4 = Table1.key4 and Level5.key5 = Table1.key5 left join Table2 asLevel4 onLevel4.key1 = Table1.key1 and Level4.key2 = Table1.key2 and Level4.key3 = Table1.key3 and Level4.key4 = Table1.key4 and Level5.key1 is null left join Table2 asLevel3 onLevel3.key1 = Table1.key1 and Level3.key2 = Table1.key2 and Level3.key3 = Table1.key3 and Level4.key1 is null left join Table2 asLevel4 onLevel4.key1 = Table1.key1 and Level4.key2 = Table1.key2 and Level3.key1 is null left join Table2 asLevel5 onLevel5.key1 = Table1.key1 and Level4.key1 is null While the second option looks more verbose, it may be more appropriate if Table2 is small in relation to Table1, and Table1 can be pruned by key1 at the very least. (2) Once you have the data joined, the update itself is much more straightforward. Wrap one of the select as a 'create temporary table t2t as' and use that in the update statement: update Table1 set value = ( select value from t2t where t2t.row_id = Table1.rowid ) where exists ( select 1 fromt2t where t2t.row_id = Table1.rowid ) As always, YMMV. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Fuzzy joins
Ouch, I certainly did forget the where clauses! Table1 and Table2 are going to be roughly the same size. What I am trying to do, btw, is to take an extract from a prior period, which has had the "Value" added to it, and move that value in to the matching record in the new extract. There is a natural key in the table that is being extracted, but the columns that make up that natural key are not exposed to us mere mortals. Of the fields I have to play with, only key1 is actually part of the natural key in the source table. The others are fields which could be freely changed from one month to another. The higher the key number, the most likely it is to be changed from one month to another. In your selects below, lets say we have two records in table2 which have exactly the same keys as a record in Table1, won't the select then spit out two values in the select? Or am I missing how that case is excluded? And should I take it the two last Left joins should have been Level2 and Level1, and not repeat the use of Level4 and Level5? And your option (a) is only one of 5 selects, each having one less key? For (b), lets say: Table1 Rowid|Key1 | Key2 | Key3 | Key4 | Key5 1 1 2 3 4 5 Table2 Rowid|Key1 | Key2 | Key3 | Key4 | Key5|Value 11 1 2 3 4 5 x 12 1 2 3 4 -5 y Just looking at levels 4 and 5 wouldn't the results be... Table1.Rowid | Level5.Rowid | Level4.Rowid | Value 1 11 12 x (from level 5)1 null 11 y (from level 4) 1 null 12 y (from level 4) Or am I mis-interpreting what you wrote? Um, I am wrong, cause I just tried it and sqlite only returns the level 5 result. I have no clue why! David From: Petite Abeille To: General Discussion of SQLite Database Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [sqlite] Fuzzy joins On Mar 11, 2013, at 4:54 PM, David Bicking wrote: > Am I missing an obviously better way to do it? > A way that can easily be expanded when they come back to me and say if I > looked at a fifth column, you'd have been able to match it…. As they stand, your updates will always match whatever was computed last as you don't have a where clause in your update statements. Most likely not what you want. If only SQLite had a merge statement, this would all be much easier. Anyhow, personally, I would decompose the problem into two steps: (1) How to join Table1 to Table2 considering these various keys. (2) How to update Table2 with Table2's value given (1) For (1), you have two main options: (a) keys concatenation or (b) a series of left joins (warning: pseudo code ahead) (a) select Table1.row_id as t1_row_id, Table2.value from ( select rowid as row_id, key1 || '.' || key2 || '.' || key3 || '.' || key4 || '.' || key5 as key from Table1 ) as Table1 left join ( select rowid as row_id, key1 || '.' || key2 || '.' || key3 || '.' || key4 || '.' || key5 as key, value from Table2 ) as Table2 on Table2.key = Table1.key The above will always result in two full table scan. (b) select Table1.rowid as t1_row_id, coalesce( Level5.value, Level4.value, Level3.value, Level2.value, Level1.value ) as value from Table1 left join Table2 as Level5 on Level5.key1 = Table1.key1 and Level5.key2 = Table1.key2 and Level5.key3 = Table1.key3 and Level5.key4 = Table1.key4 and Level5.key5 = Table1.key5 left join Table2 as Level4 on Level4.key1 = Table1.key1 and Level4.key2 = Table1.key2 and Level4.key3 = Table1.key3 and Level4.key4 = Table1.key4 and Level5.key1 is null left join Table2 as Level3 on Level3.key1 = Table1.key1 and Level3.key2 = Table1.key2 and Level3.key3 = Table1.key3 and Level4.key1 is null left join Table2 as Level4 on Level4.key1 = Table1.key1 and Level4.key2 = Table1.key2 and Level3.key1 is null left join Table2 as Level5 on Level5.key1 = Table1.key1 and Level4.key1 is null While the second option looks more verbose, it may be more appropriate if Table2 is small in relation to Table1, and Table1 can be pruned by key1 at the very least. (2) Once you have the data joined, the update itself is much more straightforward. Wrap one of the select as a 'create temporary table t2t as' and use that in the update statement: update Table1 set value = ( select value from t2t where t2t.row_id = Table1.rowid ) where exists (
Re: [sqlite] Fuzzy joins
On Mar 11, 2013, at 10:32 PM, David Bicking wrote: > Um, I am wrong, cause I just tried it and sqlite only returns the level 5 > result. I have no clue why! The joins are setup from most specific to broadest. Each join is evaluated only if the previous one returns null (i.e. all these 'and PreviousLevel.Key is null'). ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Fuzzy joins
Yeah, one benefit of a long commute is that I could puzzle it out and understand why it works. select t1.*, ( select v from t2 where t2.k1=t1.k1 and t2.k2=t1.k2 and t2.k3=t1.k3 and t2.k4=t1.k4 and t2.k5=t1.k5 group by k1,k2,k3,k4,k5 having count(*)=1 union select v from t2 where t2.k1=t1.k1 and t2.k2=t1.k2 and t2.k3=t1.k3 and t2.k4=t1.k4 group by k1,k2,k3,k4 having count(*)=1 union select v from t2 where t2.k1=t1.k1 and t2.k2=t1.k2 and t2.k3=t1.k3 group by k1,k2,k3 having count(*)=1 union select v from t2 where t2.k1=t1.k1 and t2.k2=t1.k2 group by k1,k2 having count(*)=1 union select v from t2 where t2.k1=t1.k1 group by k1 having count(*)=1 ) from t1; I haven't fully tested it, but it looks like this does almost what I want. Ideally if something is duplicated in t1, but is unique in t2, this will match the t2 record to both records in t1, and it shouldn't. But I am really close now. David From: Petite Abeille To: General Discussion of SQLite Database Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [sqlite] Fuzzy joins On Mar 11, 2013, at 10:32 PM, David Bicking wrote: > Um, I am wrong, cause I just tried it and sqlite only returns the level 5 > result. I have no clue why! The joins are setup from most specific to broadest. Each join is evaluated only if the previous one returns null (i.e. all these 'and PreviousLevel.Key is null'). ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] TCL Test failures on ARM
Has anyone came across same problem ? Appreciate if someone can point out what’s going wrong with these tests -- View this message in context: http://sqlite.1065341.n5.nabble.com/TCL-Test-failures-on-ARM-tp67612p67637.html Sent from the SQLite mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] TCL Test failures on ARM
On 03/12/2013 10:48 AM, bkk wrote: Has anyone came across same problem ? Appreciate if someone can point out what’s going wrong with these tests Is there something odd about trying to write to errno on this platform? These tests depend on function tsIsFailErrno() in file test_syscall.c being able to assign a value to errno. Are you able to check with a debugger (or otherwise) if that is actually working? Dan. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
