--- "Wilson, Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That being said, I've run into a huge roadblock. I'm using flex which
> produces lex.yy.c which includes and .
Which errno/unistd functions are actually used by the generated flex code?
getc, ungetc?
Maybe you can supply work-alike functions and
Ok. No problem I can take care of the memory issues.
That being said, I've run into a huge roadblock. I'm using flex which
produces lex.yy.c which includes and . Since I'm
working in WinCE (eVC 4.2) neither of these includes exist. Sigh. I
think I'm hosed. If I build my lexer with flex++,
--- "Wilson, Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. My non-terminal token destructors are not getting called. The
> terminal destructors work fine, but none of my terminal tokens need
> destruction. Two of my non-terminals definitely require destruction. I
> have properly defined the %destructor
Ok I've come a long way and have a functional parser using lemon and
flex. However, there are a few unresolved items that I need help with.
1. My non-terminal token destructors are not getting called. The
terminal destructors work fine, but none of my terminal tokens need
destruction. Two of
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:27:37 -0800, Steven Fisher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So I've been using EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN to try to optimize my queries,
>and I realized I'm missing something important.
>
>It shares what tables are used and what indexes, but as I understand
>it, it doesn't include
It may be the case where the index will cause more harm than good in this
instance depending upon the percentage matching. In other words if only 10% of
the records match using the index great... But if say 90% match the index this
would be Very Bad and A Full scan would be quicker.
I full
Ed,
Dan opened a ticket. I agree the documentation isn't clear on the Exlusive
locking state.
Not really sure, if this is by design or a bug at this stage. I do think its a
great feature of the Shared cache mode to allow table level locking. But I'm
curious with this table level locking what
Hello,`
Empirically I found that it is exactly true.
Must admit I'm confused but may it is in line with the Shared-Cache
locking model.
This does not mention the EXCLUSIVE locking state.
The most 'secure' locking state it mentions is a write-transaction
and this can coexist with
Thanks to all great people that help me. I will create a specific field
with an index on that. Bye!
You could create a field in the table Value01LessThanValue02 and use a
trigger to update this value whenever data is updated. Then you can search
on just this one field. However, it's a boolean
So I've been using EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN to try to optimize my queries,
and I realized I'm missing something important.
It shares what tables are used and what indexes, but as I understand
it, it doesn't include whether I'm working entirely off indexes or
not. For instance, if I have a line:
arbalest06 wrote:
i already got it working..
I'm glad to hear that.
however, is still have the free(): invalid pointer problem in my
sqlite3_close..this is my code for my close api:
if( GDBM_Db_p != NULL )
{
printf( "FDBM_Close: GDBM_Db_p is not NULL\n" );
/* closes
Continuing with Sams thought process,
Create another table that only contains record id's where value01=value02
Then just query table01_a
The use of an index is probably not going to help and your better off most
likely performing the full table scan especially if you are getting a
i already got it working..the only problem was that my condition ( char * ) =
"id=1"..i got it working when i made it to "id = 1"..spaces did that trouble
to my code..however, is still have the free(): invalid pointer problem in my
sqlite3_close..this is my code for my close api:
if(
arbalest06 wrote:
im implementing a C program that uses the sqlite as my database..im using a
global database pointer because im creating my apis for open and close
database..my problem is that when i put a select query, the return value is
1..i copied my query to the console of sqlite3 and it
You could create a field in the table Value01LessThanValue02 and use a
trigger to update this value whenever data is updated. Then you can search
on just this one field. However, it's a boolean result so depending on the
percentage of records that match this condition, the index may not be that
good day!
im implementing a C program that uses the sqlite as my database..im using a
global database pointer because im creating my apis for open and close
database..my problem is that when i put a select query, the return value is
1..i copied my query to the console of sqlite3 and it worked
Hello,
I'm trying to compile SQLite 3.5.4 and I'm having the following problem:
first, it does not detect anymore if TCL is present or not, so I added
the --disable-tcl option to the configure, but even with this option
I'm getting the following:
$ configure CC=xlc_r CXX=xlC_r
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:36:29 +0100, Clodo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi, i have a table like this with thousand of records:
>
>CREATE TABLE Table01 (
> id integer,
> value01 text,
> value02 text
>);
>
>I need to optimize the following sql:
>
>SELECT * FROM Table01 WHERE VALUE01
>How i
Hi, i have a table like this with thousand of records:
CREATE TABLE Table01 (
id integer,
value01 text,
value02 text
);
I need to optimize the following sql:
SELECT * FROM Table01 WHERE VALUE01
*) for crypting/compression you can have a look at
http://www.greschenz.de
(look/search for "sqlite" of course :-)
i've written 2 (very small) sqlite-functions to support this...
if my server is down again, please inform me :-)
*) yes, i always use *.sdb (for SqliteDB, what else :-)
Jason
20 matches
Mail list logo
