Re: [sqlite] 3.0 file format change for non-manifest typing or strict affinity
> In brief, I want an option that is like "normal" except that an error > is returned if the data can not be converted to the column's declared > type; I want some input flexibility, but I don't want the engine to > store values that are not of the correct type. I second this wish. Frank Baumgart - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [sqlite] indexing large tables
... > now, i tried to put the index on the table afterwards. i tried this when > the table was real big > (600Mb, about 40.000.000 rows).. After six hours, sqlite had read and > wrote 150Gb (!) to disk > (that is: reading 150Gb, writing 150Gb according to windows taskman) the > job still wasn't done.. > i had to kill the job. It seems obvious to me that you are not using transactions. Use BEGIN/COMMIT. Frank Baumgart - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [sqlite] Re: I tried sending email to sqlite@egroups.com but it failed to post
>> I was wondering if it were possible to straightforwardly >> programmatically control (hopefully without hacking the engine) which >> tables will be kept cached in memory by default. For example, if I know >> that a particular table, or a particular index, will be accessed very >> frequently, is it possible to explicitly tell SQLite to keep that table >> cached in memory for higher performance? > > No. Any reasonable OS should do that anyway. Frank - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [sqlite] performance question
Hi, > I have a question about the performance of my SQLite DB, where the > db-file has about 20MB and which I use in a Java application via the > Java wrapper. First, your timing figures look indeed slower than what I would expect (using a somewhat similar DB in type and size and a similar select even on an embedded system) The Java wrapper might be your first suspective. Did you try the command line program as a reference? > TABB has 14785 rows, TABG 7111 rows. > On my PC the following query requires about 53 seconds: > select * from TABG a, TABB b where (a.S='3' or a.S='12 or...) and > b.G=a.G order by a.G asc; Depending upon how many "or" conditions you have, you might try ot use the "in" keyword. (Although I would not expect much improvement) > The times are used only for the query, not connecting etc. I guess it > has something to do with building up the data structures for the first > query resp. caching. I do not think the behaviour you see is sqlite-internal, I would suspect the Java wrapper. How large is the output of your selection? Maybe it is just the transfer (socket, whatever) which takes so much time. Regards, Frank Baumgart - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
