On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:34 PM, imin imup wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm cross-compiling SQLite 3.6.12 onto Fedora 14 on MIPS cpu. The command
> > line tool sqlite3 runs into segmentation fault when I tried to create a
> > table:
> >
>
Simon Slavin wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2011, at 7:19pm, Alexandr Němec wrote:
>
>> just a quick question, I did not find the answer in the various technical
>> documents. I have two identical tables with a id
>> INTEGER as a primary key, which means that SELECTions ORDERed BY id are very
>> fast. Now
2011/12/15 Alexandr Němec
>
> Dear all,
>
> just a quick question, I did not find the answer in the various technical
> documents. I have two identical tables with a id INTEGER as a primary key,
> which means that SELECTions ORDERed BY id are very fast. Now if I do SELECT
> * FROM table1 UNION AL
H K wrote:
>
> Sorry but the file has a content table but no contents.
> Am I doing something wrong with the chm?
> Thx
>
You may need to right-click the file in Windows Explorer, go to
"Properties",
and then click on "Unblock" in order to make it work properly.
--
Joe Mistachkin
Sorry but the file has a content table but no contents.
Am I doing something wrong with the chm?
Thx
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Joe Mistachkin wrote:
>
> H K wrote:
> >
> > Is it possible to load these functions with the load_extension function?
> >
>
> Please take a look at the SQLiteFuncti
On 15 Dec 2011, at 7:19pm, Alexandr Němec wrote:
> just a quick question, I did not find the answer in the various technical
> documents. I have two identical tables with a id INTEGER as a primary key,
> which means that SELECTions ORDERed BY id are very fast. Now if I do SELECT *
> FROM table
The answers to your questions :
1)Yes I'm still using System.Data.SQLite but without any key.
2)No I don't use WAL.
3)Running only one thread didn't bring up the problem.
4)Didn't have any time yet.
5)Standard System.Data.SQLite with RC4 algorithm impleemnted there.
I've taken a look into the the
A couple more questions:
1) Does "without encryption" mean still using System.Data.SQLite, just
without using a key?
2) Are you using WAL?
3) Do you also see the problem with a single process with two connections?
4) Any chance you could provide a small demo project that demonstrates the
probl
Regarding my earlier question as to .NET SQlite syntax, I was wondering if I
had to use DataAdapters and create and fill objects (DataSets), or not.
Here is some sample code dealing with SQLite in C#:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/SQLiteCSharp.aspx
It looks to me like he is loading the databa
Dear all,
just a quick question, I did not find the answer in the various technical
documents. I have two identical tables with a id INTEGER as a primary key,
which means that SELECTions ORDERed BY id are very fast. Now if I do SELECT *
FROM table1 UNION ALL SELECT * FROM table2 ORDER by id,
On 12/15/2011 11:59 PM, Jeff Matthews wrote:
This is in the documentation:
CREATE TABLE t1(
x INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
a, /* collating sequence BINARY */
b COLLATE BINARY, /* collating sequence BINARY */
c COLLATE RTRIM, /* collating sequence RTRIM */
d
This is in the documentation:
CREATE TABLE t1(
x INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
a, /* collating sequence BINARY */
b COLLATE BINARY, /* collating sequence BINARY */
c COLLATE RTRIM, /* collating sequence RTRIM */
d COLLATE NOCASE /* collating sequence NOCASE */
)
ok, Thank you to both.
Le 15 déc. 2011 à 16:24, Richard Hipp a écrit :
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Pavel Ivanov wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Paxdo Presse wrote:
>>> It's normal not to get an error message
>>> when trying to remove or edit a record that has already bee
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Pavel Ivanov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Paxdo Presse wrote:
> > It's normal not to get an error message
> > when trying to remove or edit a record that has already been removed?
>
> Yes, it's normal. That's how SQL (in any DBMS, not only SQLite)
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Paxdo Presse wrote:
> It's normal not to get an error message
> when trying to remove or edit a record that has already been removed?
Yes, it's normal. That's how SQL (in any DBMS, not only SQLite) works.
Pavel
___
sql
Hi all,
It's normal not to get an error message
when trying to remove or edit a record that has already been removed?
Thank you,
olivier
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
I think the following observation, which I made in the meantime, may be very
interesting. Which also gives a hint to a problem with SQLite in combination
with the encryption of System.Data.SQLite.
I tried the same test with an unencrypted database, and surprisingly the 3
threads do their work
Fabrizio Steiner wrote:
> I'm currently facing a problem with the System.Data.SQLite ADO.NET Provider.
> I'm using stamps (simple integer column) on the rows
> in order to detect if another user has altered the same datarow during the
> time the first user started the edit and when he
> invoked
Hi,
Version 3.7.9
gcc 4.6.2
Sparc-Solaris 2.10
I am trying, to compile with --enable-shared.
See attached the output of the configure and gmake.
In the .libs directory, i see that the sqlite3.o is larger than 1 MB...
Might that be the problem? Is it a problem, to build a usable shared
library, t
Hello
I'm currently facing a problem with the System.Data.SQLite ADO.NET Provider.
I'm using stamps (simple integer column) on the rows in order to detect if
another user has altered the same datarow during the time the first user
started the edit and when he invoked the save. Every update incr
YJM YAN wrote:
> source table:
> DDL:
> "create table xxx_table(id interger primary key autoincrement, field1,
> field2)"
>
> int ret = sqlite3_exec(m_db,"attach './backup.db' as filedb",0,0,NULL);
> ret = sqlite3_exec(m_db,"begin transaction",0,0,NULL);
> ret = sqlite3_exec(m_db,"create tabl
hello，
I'm a new programer to sqlite and SQL . I have a struct like
this
typedef struct program
{
int tp_id;
UM_U32 provider_lock: 1;
UM_U32 subtitle_pid :13;
UM_U32 teletext_pid :13;
UM_U32 cur_audio : 5;
UM_U8 oes_type[MAX_OES_CNT];
UM_U16 o
I have added a new column with the date in seconds, created an index
over this column and modified the query a little bit. Now the query
takes less than 20 seconds. Since this is the worst case I'm happy with
the result.
Just for reference, the final query is:
SELECT STRFTIME('%Y-%m-%d %H %
23 matches
Mail list logo
