On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:42 PM, David Garfield
wrote:
> If the value in key is a blob, then like matches it and = does not.
Thanks. This suggestion helped me track down the issue. I was actually
going through ActiveRecord (the ORM for Ruby on Rails). Was upgrading
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 08:32:04PM -0400, Eric Anderson scratched on the wall:
> The below statement returns records:
>
> SELECT * FROM recordings WHERE "key" LIKE
> '4df0247ce1a97685a782d2cb051b48ed952e666c';
>
> But this one does not:
>
> SELECT * FROM recordings WHERE "key" =
>
If the value in key is a blob, then like matches it and = does not.
Because like has to do a string conversion on key, it also doesn't use
the index.
Try:
SELECT * FROM recordings WHERE "key" =
cast('4df0247ce1a97685a782d2cb051b48ed952e666c' as blob);
Or try inserting the key as text in the
The below statement returns records:
SELECT * FROM recordings WHERE "key" LIKE
'4df0247ce1a97685a782d2cb051b48ed952e666c';
But this one does not:
SELECT * FROM recordings WHERE "key" =
'4df0247ce1a97685a782d2cb051b48ed952e666c';
The only difference is that = and LIKE have been swapped.
I
What I'm looking for is to be able to compile SQLite with ICU enabled and have
the test application run at all. I don't necessarily need to debug or run from
the IDE. It seems no matter which configuration I use, or which settings I
tweak, nothing will work.
In order to get the test
>
> System.Reflection.TargetInvocationException: Exception has been thrown by
the target of an invocation. --->
> System.TypeInitializationException: The type initializer for
'System.Data.SQLite.SQLiteFactory' threw an exception. --->
> System.DllNotFoundException: Unable to load DLL
I have downloaded the SQLite source code (sqlite-netFx-source-1.0.74.0) as well
as the latest ICU libraries (icu4c-4_8-Win32-msvc10). I then build the SQLite
projects and run the test.2008 application and it runs fine when
SQLITE_ENABLE_ICU is undefined. However, when I do define
all of the below is really good advice that I shall follow over this weekend.
Many thanks.
On Sep 29, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Petite Abeille wrote:
>
> On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Mr. Puneet Kishor wrote:
>
>> Well, defeated by FTS4 for now, I will try the following approach --
>
> [didn't
On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Mr. Puneet Kishor wrote:
> Well, defeated by FTS4 for now, I will try the following approach --
[didn't follow the thread blow by blow, so apologies if this was already
covered and dismissed :)]
Before you jump to the deep end...
FTS tables are meant to be
On Sep 29, 2011, at 8:52 AM, Black, Michael (IS) wrote:
> Why do you think postgres would be any better?
>
I don't. That is why I have two options.
> Have you thought about writing your own code to process the tables rather
> than letting the database do all the work?
Well, that kinda
On 29 Sep 2011, at 2:30pm, Mr. Puneet Kishor wrote:
> Well, defeated by FTS4 for now, I will try the following approach --
>
> 1. drop the fts tables and rebuild them and test.
>
> 2. if the above doesn't work, then either migrate the data to Postgres and
> use its fts, or implement e-Swish
Why do you think postgres would be any better?
Have you thought about writing your own code to process the tables rather than
letting the database do all the work?
Load your data into memory and then slog through the uris to winnow out the
matches?
Probably a LOT faster than letting the db do
Well, defeated by FTS4 for now, I will try the following approach --
1. drop the fts tables and rebuild them and test.
2. if the above doesn't work, then either migrate the data to Postgres and use
its fts, or implement e-Swish or httpdig for full text search.
On Sep 28, 2011, at 4:35 PM,
On 29 Sep 2011, at 9:27am, Patrick Villette wrote:
> select distinct IdProjet, IdActivite from Taches where Deleted=0 order by
> Debut desc limit 5
>
> With Version 3.7.7.1 the result ( which seems correct ) is :
>
> IdProjet IdActivite
> 53 23
> 23 9
> 5 17
>
Hi,
I noticed differences in the result of a "SELECT DISTINCT" query between
version 3.7.7.1 and 3.7.8
The query is :
select distinct IdProjet, IdActivite from Taches where Deleted=0 order
by Debut desc limit 5
With Version 3.7.7.1 the result ( which seems correct ) is :
IdProjet
Dear sqlite,
hello, I recently transplanted sqlie3.37 to vxworks6.6, encountered
some problems, please help me, thank you!After debugging, I found the file
control error s =- 1, leading to the problem: database is locked!
...
lock.l_len = 1L;
lock.l_whence = SEEK_SET;
/* A PENDING lock
On 09/29/2011 05:20 PM, Mikael wrote:
2011/9/29 Simon Slavin
On 29 Sep 2011, at 10:38am, Dan Kennedy wrote:
On 09/29/2011 03:17 PM, Jaco Breitenbach wrote:
In the WAL documentation (http://www.sqlite.org/wal.html) it is hinted
that
the checkpoint operation, which is
2011/9/29 Simon Slavin
>
> On 29 Sep 2011, at 10:38am, Dan Kennedy wrote:
>
> > On 09/29/2011 03:17 PM, Jaco Breitenbach wrote:
> >> In the WAL documentation (http://www.sqlite.org/wal.html) it is hinted
> that
> >> the checkpoint operation, which is normally in the same
On 29 Sep 2011, at 10:38am, Dan Kennedy wrote:
> On 09/29/2011 03:17 PM, Jaco Breitenbach wrote:
>> In the WAL documentation (http://www.sqlite.org/wal.html) it is hinted that
>> the checkpoint operation, which is normally in the same thread if execution
>> as the database commit, could be moved
On 09/29/2011 03:17 PM, Jaco Breitenbach wrote:
Dear all,
In the WAL documentation (http://www.sqlite.org/wal.html) it is hinted that
the checkpoint operation, which is normally in the same thread if execution
as the database commit, could be moved to a separate thread or process. If
I were to
Dear all,
In the WAL documentation (http://www.sqlite.org/wal.html) it is hinted that
the checkpoint operation, which is normally in the same thread if execution
as the database commit, could be moved to a separate thread or process. If
I were to run the checkpoint in a separate thread (using
On 29 September 2011 07:35, guiz wrote:
>
> I have as the followings...
>
> create table t ([a] varchar(3), [b] varchar(3));
>
> insert into t(a, b) values('6', '2');
> insert into t(a, b) values('5', '3');
> insert into t(a, b) values('2', '3');
>
> create table t2([x]
On Sep 29, 2011, at 8:35 AM, guiz wrote:
> but I want t2.x sorted as '2, 6' , '3, 5', '2, 3' instead of '6, 2', '5, 3',
> '2, 3'.
well, then do do:
insert into t2(x) select (b || ', ' || a) from t;
___
sqlite-users mailing list
I have as the followings...
create table t ([a] varchar(3), [b] varchar(3));
insert into t(a, b) values('6', '2');
insert into t(a, b) values('5', '3');
insert into t(a, b) values('2', '3');
create table t2([x] varchar(9));
insert into t2(x) select (a || ', ' || b) from t;
but I want t2.x
24 matches
Mail list logo