Roger Binns wrote:
Im sorry for being so harsh, and i know im not winning any friends
here,
So far noone has agreed with you :-)
This would be incorrect. The correct statement is "so far no one has
vocally agreed with you".
If people didn't agree, this whole once a month people hav
On:
http://www.sqlite.org/changes.html
it lists, among others:
Allow constrain names on the DEFAULT clause in a table definition
What does this mean?
Make CVS (comma separate value) output from the command-line shell
more closely aligned to accepted practice
Shouldn't that be "CSV" not
fwiw, I never use a separate build directory. Just go into the src
directory, configure && make && make install. Works well for me.
On 1/5/07, T&B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> doing a clean build of v339 on osx 10.4.8.
>
> % cd /projects/sqlite_build
> % ../sqlite-3.3.9/configure --pref
Hi,
doing a clean build of v339 on osx 10.4.8.
% cd /projects/sqlite_build
% ../sqlite-3.3.9/configure --prefix=/usr/local/sqlite --enable-tcl
it fails at,
% make install
install: src/sqlite3ext.h: No such file or directory
I had the same problem. But I ignorantly s
An option would be to identify it as a critical patch against 3.3.9
somewhere on your website. As an example, wxWidgets keep an easy to
find set of critical patches for each of it's releases http://
www.wxwidgets.org/downloads/patch.htm.
On 5-Jan-07, at 8:32 PM, Joe Wilson wrote:
Any c
Any crash bug fix in btree.c or pager.c warrants a new release.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The question is: should I rush out 3.3.10 to cover this important
> bug fix, wait a week to see if any other bugs surface, or do the
> usual 1-2 month release schedule and let people effected by this
>
Inserting 1000,001 records each with Autocommit off, I get
PRAGMA off: 11 wallclock secs (11.19 usr + 0.35 sys = 11.54 CPU)
PRAGMA normal: 14 wallclock secs (11.36 usr + 0.38 sys = 11.74 CPU)
PRAGMA full: 14 wallclock secs (11.41 usr + 0.37 sys = 11.78 CPU)
in other words, speed ranges from 0
Jay,
I think you are right - it's the syncing that's taking too long.
Turning that off speeds things up substantially (see below for
details). Turning it off works for my requirements as it would
require an OS crash to corrupt my db.
I wonder if this timing profile is characteristic of
You are experiencung the ACID feature of Sqlite. To insert faster group
your inserts into a single transaction.
Sean Payne wrote:
Hi,
I'm new to the list and to SQLITE. I am using it as a backend for a
gui program I'm working on.
However, I am measuring a single trivial insert using the C
s
On 1/5/07, Sean Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I'm new to the list and to SQLITE. I am using it as a backend for a
gui program I'm working on.
However, I am measuring a single trivial insert using the C
sqlite3_exec as taking 190-200ms. I am not interested in bulk
transactions. Using
Hi,
I'm new to the list and to SQLITE. I am using it as a backend for a
gui program I'm working on.
However, I am measuring a single trivial insert using the C
sqlite3_exec as taking 190-200ms. I am not interested in bulk
transactions. Using a prepared insert doesn't seem to reduce the
time
hi all
i have two questions:
1) how can i build sqlite3 with static libs? ; in my case I
have multiple versions of sqlite3 and their dynamic libs
...
2) what i have to do after this message:
"""
cp ../sqlite-3.3.9/www/common.tcl .
tclsh ../sqlite-3.3.9/www/arch.tcl >arch.html
In FreeBSD, tclsh is
easy enough ...
@661
Makefile.in
install:sqlite3 libsqlite3.la sqlite3.h ${HAVE_TCL:1=tcl_install}
$(INSTALL) -d $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)
$(LTINSTALL) libsqlite3.la $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)
$(INSTALL) -d $(DESTDIR)$(exec_prefix)/bin
doing a clean build of v339 on osx 10.4.8.
% cd /projects/sqlite_build
% ../sqlite-3.3.9/configure --prefix=/usr/local/sqlite --enable-tcl
--enable-shared --enable-static --enable-debug --enable-threadsafe=yes
and,
% make
complete successfully.
at,
% make install
it fails at,
Ken,
Thanks for you comments. I have coded and tested a module just like
test_server.c and by disabling the safety checks i have also been able
to code and test an example which uses a single connection, single
transaction, single table with up to 50 threads doing
insert/update/delete with no er
> not to spark a debate
Although the majority of this thread is as clear as mud, it is still
interesting, even for simple VBA programmers like me that have no chance
(maybe via a VB6 ActiveX exe) to use multi-threading.
RBS
> Emerson, one posts to a forum like this to get help and other ideas,
Can we please stop this thread?
John Stanton wrote:
Emerson, one posts to a forum like this to get help and other ideas, not
to spark a debate. Many talented people gave you some of their time to
help you solve your problem and one in particular gave you a well
conceived and executed piece of
I concurr with Dennis.
Dennis Cote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The question is: should I rush out 3.3.10 to cover this important
> bug fix, wait a week to see if any other bugs surface, or do the
> usual 1-2 month release schedule and let people effected by this
> bug
Emerson, one posts to a forum like this to get help and other ideas, not
to spark a debate. Many talented people gave you some of their time to
help you solve your problem and one in particular gave you a well
conceived and executed piece of software free of charge. Appreciate
their charity.
Emerson,
I agree with you somewhat. Not 100% convinced but, I like you am a little
dissapointed how sqlite handles "threadsafe" and multiple connections. Even in
the "test_server.c" module is not "concurrent" As it serializes all processing
to a single thread, this is not concurrent processi
>From "SQL Features That SQLite Does Not Implement":
"Those features near the top of the list are likely to be added in the near
future."
FOREIGN KEY constraints FOREIGN KEY constraints are parsed but are
not enforced
So next feature to expect is Foreign Key constraints!? Great!
W
We were influenced by Deming's work on total quality. He advocates
fixing each problem the moment it is identified and taking great pains
never to ship product with defects. That way quality is maximized, The
short term invonvenience is swamped by the long terms advantages.
I would agree wi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is: should I rush out 3.3.10 to cover this important
bug fix, wait a week to see if any other bugs surface, or do the
usual 1-2 month release schedule and let people effected by this
bug apply the patch above. What is the opinion of the user community?
Ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What other tests?
>
thread1.test and thread2.test
--
D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Roger,
Of course you can test threading behaviour, yes its not exactly
repeatable but under most circumstances and with enough test cases you
can catch the problems.
I don't think sqlite is such a large and complicated piece of software
that it would be impossible to reproduce such errors.
Ever
What other tests?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ken wrote:
> threadtest2 generated a segmentation fault as well as an illegal operations
> when running against version 3.3.9 (in 32bit mode).
>
> I did compile using --enable-threadsafe.
>
> Does this mean this version is not threadsafe?
threadt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Emerson Clarke wrote:
> I have to admit i am a little dissapointed. As the primary author of
> the software i would have thought that you would have a good
> understanding of what the thread safety characteristics of your own
> api were.
He does! It
Joe Wilson wrote:
The performance is pretty much the same as using a :memory: database.
Indexes can still be useful on memory databases to speed up queries.
It depends on your schema/data. Try it and see.
--- Cesar Rodas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am wondering if will be faster if i create a
Richard,
I have to admit i am a little dissapointed. As the primary author of
the software i would have thought that you would have a good
understanding of what the thread safety characteristics of your own
api were.
Suggesting that suppressing the safety checks will result in random
and non re
Hi Everyone,
I would like to be able to change the step size of an AUTOINCREMENT rowid,
so that it is incremented by some integer other than 1. The purpose is for
database replication, for which I need rows of a table in two different
databases to have non-overlapping rowid ranges. I have tried t
"Emerson Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The problem i had was with sqlite not being compatible with the simple
> design that i wanted. I did try several alternate designs, but only
> as a way of working around the problem i had with sqlite. It took a
> long time but eventually i managed
John,
Um, alright then...
But i think your preaching to the converted, simplifying things is
what i always try to do. And not just when theres a problem
If you followed the thread fully you would realise that there was
never a problem with my design, though that didnt stop many people
from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Works here too, as of 2 minutes ago.
Martin
Ralf Junker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I recently receive this error message when checking out from CVS:
cvs checkout: dying gasps from www.sqlite.org unexpected
The CVS help at http://ximbiot.com/cvs/manual/cvs-1.11.2
Marco Bambini wrote:
in my opinion you should release it as soon as possible, a lot of
people haven't yet upgraded their library to the latest 3.3.9 so it
seems reasonable to me to upgrade directly to 3.3.10.
+1
Martin
--
Ralf Junker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recently receive this error message when checking out from CVS:
>
> cvs checkout: dying gasps from www.sqlite.org unexpected
>
> The CVS help at http://ximbiot.com/cvs/manual/cvs-1.11.22/cvs_21.html#SEC188
> reads:
>
> "There is a known bug in the
I recently receive this error message when checking out from CVS:
cvs checkout: dying gasps from www.sqlite.org unexpected
I am using the latest stable CVS.exe for Windows from
http://ftp.gnu.org/non-gnu/cvs/binary/stable/x86-woe/cvs-1-11-22.zip
I am running these commands:
cvs -d :pse
I've read this article more than once and I still find it inspiring...
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s04.html
I'd say, you have the fix, just release it, why not? if you're waiting
for a next bug, you'll never have the guarantee that "tomorrow" no bug
wil
in my opinion you should release it as soon as possible, a lot of
people haven't yet upgraded their library to the latest 3.3.9 so it
seems reasonable to me to upgrade directly to 3.3.10.
---
Marco Bambini
http://www.sqlabs.net
http://www.sqlabs.net/blog/
http://www.sqlabs.net/realsqlserver/
When I fixed threadtest2.c yesterday, it quickly uncovered a bug
(not thread related but a bug all the same) that was introduced by
the fix to the database corruption problem of earlier this week. The
new bug does not cause database corruption, but it can cause a
segfault if you have a lot of sql
"Mohd Radzi Ibrahim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm using MS VS 2005 (SQLite 3.3.9) and having problem re-building the
> component. I've just included all the source code inside my project and
> compile. With version 3.3.8 it works fine, but with current (3.3.9) it's
> giving me missing
Good work Dr. R. Hipp!
I agree with "Jason Hawryluk" that the temp-file location should be
change-able with an option, e.g. compile-time "define".
Regards,
Klemens Friedl
-
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
41 matches
Mail list logo
