On 22 Feb 2011, at 22:03, H. Phil Duby wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Philip Graham Willoughby
> wrote:
>>
>> On 22 Feb 2011, at 15:41, Max Vlasov wrote:
>>> The obvious solution is public-key cryptography. The question is about
>>> different ways how it could be implemented with sql
Hello list,
thanks for helping me out- I guess it was a limitation in the DLL.
I resorted to ODBC now, using the SQLITE3ODBC.DLL from
http://www.ch-werner.de/sqliteodbc/.
Works like a charm.
Have a fine day,
/T
Den 22.02.2011 16:07, Puneet Kishor skrev:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 04:03:22PM +010
It appears that Qt (or more accurately, WebKit) had defined
SQLITE_OMIT_LOAD_EXTENSION and a couple of other symbols at compile
time, and therefore when Qt opens a database, it uses a slightly
different VFS than the default VFS contained in sqlite3.c (i.e., no xDl*
members are set).
I believe now
Am 23.02.2011 03:28, schrieb Phil Oertel:
> Hi sqliters,
>
> After a recent failed attempt to use SQLite as an in-memory fake Oracle for
> some of my tests, I'm curious whether anyone has attempted an Oracle
> compatibility mode for SQLite. H2 and others have this tremendously useful
> feature, bu
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:03 AM, H. Phil Duby wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Philip Graham Willoughby
> wrote:
> >
> > On 22 Feb 2011, at 15:41, Max Vlasov wrote:
> > > The obvious solution is public-key cryptography. The question is about
> > > different ways how it could be implement
I'm currently dealing with a similar issue. I've found that the page_size
PRAGMA setting can have a dramatic effect on how long it takes to "warm up"
the table. On Windows 7, with page_size=1024, a SELECT COUNT(last_column)
takes 40.2 seconds. page_size=4096 takes 15.5 seconds. page_size=8192 takes
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 14:17, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> The query is really more like this:
>
> SELECT DISTINCT COALESCE(a.xxx, b.value) value
> FROM tbl1 a
> LEFT OUTER JOIN tbl2 b
> ON a.zzz = b.ttt
> WHERE value NOT IN (
> SELECT DISTINCT ggg
> FROM tbl3
> );
>
> The
Hi All,
I am using sqlite-amalgamation-3_7_3.zip source in my project.
I tested VACUUM command on a DB file which has lot of holes(fragmentation
caused by deletion of random records ) but the source file size does not
change. Instead sqlite applies the vaccum command and writes data into new
tempo
Interesting!
I've been using "PRAGMA page_size = 4096;" in my software. Perhaps I should
increase it and see if I can get a performance gain.
Does it affect INSERTs too?
> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:59:29 -0800
> From: fle...@fletchowns.net
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: Re: [sqlite]
On 23 Feb 2011, at 6:11am, Sudha Venkatareddy wrote:
> *Actual output: MyDb.db remains size 23KB(size not changes from original)
> and creates temporary file etilqs_Hm4RUi6JPXcMZ17 whose data is same as
> MyDb.db but the size is reduced to 13KB*
Your problem is probably related to
http://www.sq
SQLite version 3.7.5
Enter ".help" for instructions
Enter SQL statements terminated with a ";"
sqlite> CREATE TABLE t1 (a INT);
sqlite> CREATE TABLE t2 (b INT);
sqlite> CREATE TABLE t3 (a INT);
sqlite> SELECT * FROM t1 JOIN t2 ON t1.a = t2.b AND a /* obviously
t1.a */ != 1 JOIN t3 ON t1.a = t3.a;
E
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Greg Barker wrote:
> I'm currently dealing with a similar issue. I've found that the page_size
> PRAGMA setting can have a dramatic effect on how long it takes to "warm up"
> the table. On Windows 7, with page_size=1024, a SELECT COUNT(last_column)
> takes 40.2 se
Hi,
I referred the link http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/tktview?tn=2829
it is slightly related to it but the temporary files are created while
running VACUUM command.
---
Ticket 2829:
This patch seems to fix it (added: SQLITE_OPEN_DELETEON
Does this trick work on the primary key? If not, why?
> From: max.vla...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:09:04 +0300
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] COUNT() extremely slow first time!
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Greg Barker wrote:
>
> > I'm currently deali
Hi,
I've just upgraded from SQLite 3.6.19 to 3.7.5 and have come across the
following compile warning:
sqlite3.c: In function ‘fkLookupParent’:
sqlite3.c:55991: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when
assuming that (X - c) <= X is always true
How to reproduce:
unzip sqlite-src-30
> SQLite version 3.7.5
> Enter ".help" for instructions
> Enter SQL statements terminated with a ";"
> sqlite> CREATE TABLE t1 (a INT);
> sqlite> CREATE TABLE t2 (b INT);
> sqlite> CREATE TABLE t3 (a INT);
> sqlite> SELECT * FROM t1 JOIN t2 ON t1.a = t2.b AND a /* obviously
> t1.a */ != 1 JOIN t3
Hi-
On Windows, SQLite uses the FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE flag to have
temporary files automatically deleted after they are closed. WINCE
doesn't support this flag, so you will see special logic in os_win.c,
wrapped in #ifdef SQLITE_OS_WINCE, for handling the deletion of these
files. You mention
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Graham Hudspith
wrote:
>
> I would like to use the amalgamated build (since all the documentation
> implores me too), but this warning makes me nervous ...
>
Please read http://www.sqlite.org/testing.html and especially section 10.0
http://www.sqlite.org/testing.h
Thanks Michael, that's a great response. I didn't know about XE - having
that available, I'm much less interested in such a feature.
On Feb 23, 2011 2:14 AM, "Michael Schlenker" wrote:
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.o
Kevin,
Thank you, that is what I needed. Now to statisfy my curiosity... What
exactly is the KEY value?
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Kevin Benson wrote:
> The suggestion apparently derives from comments in attach.c
> For example:
>
> http://gears.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/third_party/sqlit
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 04:24:14AM -0800, Wiktor Adamski scratched on the wall:
> SQLite version 3.7.5
> Enter ".help" for instructions
> Enter SQL statements terminated with a ";"
> sqlite> CREATE TABLE t1 (a INT);
> sqlite> CREATE TABLE t2 (b INT);
> sqlite> CREATE TABLE t3 (a INT);
> sqlite> SEL
I believe the key is used for attaching to encrypted databases.
-scott
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Sam Carleton
wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> Thank you, that is what I needed. Now to statisfy my curiosity... What
> exactly is the KEY value?
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Kevin Benson
> wro
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Sam Carleton
wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> Thank you, that is what I needed. Now to statisfy my curiosity... What
> exactly is the KEY value?
>
The KEY is used by the (proprietary) SQLite Encryption Extension. It allows
you to ATTACH an encrypted database and specify t
> If you join
> tables which have the same column names, you need to use the table names.
You are right, but joined tables don't have the same column names.
SELECT * FROM t1 JOIN t2 ON a = b -- there is only one 'a' and that
select is correctly implemented
SELECT * FROM t1 JOIN t2 ON a = b JOIN t3
Hello Greg,
I found this to be the case too. The difference between 1K and 8K is
staggering. I default all my windows DB's to 8K now.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011, 1:59:29 PM, you wrote:
GB> I'm currently dealing with a similar issue. I've found that the page_size
GB> PRAGMA setting can have a dr
> In short, you cannot assume conditions are processed left-to-right,
> including JOIN conditions.
I admit that i haven't checked the snadart but I did check other
engines and they evaluate from left to right. I think that long time
ago I'v read in a standart that 3 table join is basicly equ
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 03:10:02PM +0100, Sven L scratched on the wall:
>
> Does this trick work on the primary key? If not, why?
Yes, all the time.
Defining a column as a PK automatically creates a UNIQUE index
over that column. The only exception is when the column is an
INTEGER PRI
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 07:21:22AM -0800, Wiktor Adamski scratched on the wall:
> > If you join
> > tables which have the same column names, you need to use the table names.
>
> You are right, but joined tables don't have the same column names.
When I say "join tables" I'm referring to the coll
The SQLite cache size is in pages (2000 by default), so by increasing
the page size 8x, you're also increasing the cache size and memory
requirements by 8x. Not saying it's a bad thing, just something to be
aware of.
If you want to compare 1K and 8K page size and only compare the effect
page size
I am trying to build a simple contacts database in SQLite.
I want people to be able to search starting with any word of the name.
So, if I have:
1,John Smith
2,Simon James
3,Simon Kelly Smith
4,Jimmy Garcia
5,Smith White Jones
6,Simon Kelly Grant
...
If a user types "Smi", he should get the foll
Thanks for pointing this out!
In my case I have spent much time on normalizing my tables, so the row size
should be constant in most cases. I do wonder though, what if the row size is
32 bytes? Or is there a minimum?
For instance, I have many lookup tables with ID+text (usually around 20
ch
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:50:05AM +0530, Sudha Venkatareddy scratched on the
wall:
> Hi All,
>
> Input:MyDb.db with size 23KB (has lot of empty pages caused due to delete
> operation)
>
> *Expected OutPut: after applying Vacuum command, should be MyDb.db with
> reduced file size of 13KB.*
>
>
On 23 February 2011 15:48, Mohit Sindhwani wrote:
> I am trying to build a simple contacts database in SQLite.
>
> I want people to be able to search starting with any word of the name.
>
> So, if I have:
> 1,John Smith
> 2,Simon James
> 3,Simon Kelly Smith
> 4,Jimmy Garcia
> 5,Smith White Jones
>
Make sure your antivirus is turned off when you run your vacuum test.
It's a long-shot, but I've seen some AVs lock files etc...
> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:14:15 -0600
> From: j...@kreibi.ch
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Problem with VACUUM feature
>
> On Wed, Feb 23,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Sven L wrote:
>
> Thanks for pointing this out!
>
> In my case I have spent much time on normalizing my tables, so the row size
> should be constant in most cases. I do wonder though, what if the row size is
> 32 bytes? Or is there a minimum?
>
> For instance, I
On 23 Feb 2011, at 3:15pm, Sam Carleton wrote:
> Thank you, that is what I needed. Now to statisfy my curiosity... What
> exactly is the KEY value?
It took me a second read of this message to grin at it.
Simon.
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-u
On 23 Feb 2011, at 3:48pm, Mohit Sindhwani wrote:
> I am trying to build a simple contacts database in SQLite.
>
> I want people to be able to search starting with any word of the name.
>
> So, if I have:
> 1,John Smith
> 2,Simon James
> 3,Simon Kelly Smith
> 4,Jimmy Garcia
> 5,Smith White Jone
On 21/02/2011, at 8:11 AM, Scott Hess wrote:
> You can also convert:
> ATTACH DATABASE x AS y KEY z
> to:
> SELECT sqlite_attach(x, y, z)
> where the parameters can be turned into bind arguments. Then embedded quotes
> won't be an issue.
SQLite won't allow an "attach" statement within a trans
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:50 PM, BareFeetWare
wrote:
> On 21/02/2011, at 8:11 AM, Scott Hess wrote:
>> You can also convert:
>> ATTACH DATABASE x AS y KEY z
>> to:
>> SELECT sqlite_attach(x, y, z)
>> where the parameters can be turned into bind arguments. Then embedded
>> quotes won't be an i
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Samuel Adam wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 14:46:06 -0500, Nico Williams
> wrote:
> I appreciate your extensive (if wildly offtopic) analysis as quoted
> below. You thoroughly misunderstood what I said, though. Again, my
> fork()/exec() comment was directed to th
Michael D. Black, Thank you for your suggestion use the sqlite 3.7 WAL mode. We
wrote a small test program to open 2 WAL connections to the main database and
insert 5.4 million rows into a table. The code is shown below. We wiil add
sqlite error handling handling code tomorrow.
The program a
Hi,
The porting is done in little tricky way due to limited support from
underlying platform.
Ported code does not completely follow WINDOWS. it is WINDOWS + WINCE
configuration.
Porting is done as below.
*Step 1.* Main macros defnined in the source include:
#define SQLITE_DEBUG 0
#define SQL
42 matches
Mail list logo
