> For Peter & Pepijn - I think the issue is essentially a forward-compatibility
> problem moreso than a backward-compatibility one. So I think your idea on
> introducing some version control would be the least painful.
Indeed. The lack of rowid itself is not an issue. It's that someone could
cr
outside of the parens?
shouldn't it go inside the parens?
eg: say the playlist ID i want is "57", would i do this?
also: what is the "1" for?
sorry for my newb-ness, still learning! but fun!
DELETE FROM playlist
WHERE EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM songlist
WHERE playlist.playlistID=songlis
what about "playlistID=X" ?
the playlist table has "playlistID", (different playlists)
i only want the ones in a particular playlist
On Nov 15, 2013, at 5:36 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:55 AM, David M. Cotter wrote:
>
>> i have a "song" table S that has "songID", "play
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:03:44 +
Simon Slavin wrote:
> I'm wondering what particular thing MERGE does that this person
> needs, which doesn't happen if they use just the single commands
> INSERT OR REPLACE or UPDATE OR REPLACE.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:31:25 +0100
Petite Abeille wrote:
> There
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:54:17 +0400
dd wrote:
> After applying normalization, there are twelve tables with foreign
> key support.
Well done.
> For insert/delete operations, it has to execute twelve queries
> instead of two. Is it recommended way?
Yes. In a user-defined transaction.
Each
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:35:31 +0400
dd wrote:
> Can I conclude this way: Foreign keys works pretty well when
> application deals with parent keys only. But, application may need to
> execute more queries when dealing with child key/tables.
Constraints express rules that the DBMS enforces for you.
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:36:06 -0800
Igor Korot wrote:
> Well from strictly mathematical point of view maximum or minimum of
> nothing is nothing. And since nothing is 0, than it is zero.
Who is the oldest female US president?
You largest of a set must be a member of that set. Actually, I susp
On 16 Nov 2013, at 3:11pm, James K. Lowden wrote:
> http://www.schemamania.org/sql/#some.rows
>
> The logical equivalent of MERGE is accomplished by one INSERT and one
> UPDATE inside a user-defined transaction. Given SQLite's locking
> semantics, it's atomic. Nothing procedural about it.
On 16 Nov 2013, at 3:14pm, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:36:06 -0800
> Igor Korot wrote:
>
>> Well from strictly mathematical point of view maximum or minimum of
>> nothing is nothing. And since nothing is 0, than it is zero.
>
> Who is the oldest female US president?
And,
On Nov 16, 2013, at 4:11 PM, James K. Lowden wrote:
> The logical equivalent of MERGE is accomplished by one INSERT and one
> UPDATE inside a user-defined transaction. Given SQLite's locking
> semantics, it's atomic. Nothing procedural about it.
Well, one would still need to wrap these tran
Perhaps we should make the allowed DDL subset a part of the spec. That way we make explicit what is allowed and anything outside
of that is forbidden. Pepijn
Perhaps.
It would involve a rather large document though, one which an average user is sure to skip over but at least it provides indem
okay i realize my requirements were wrong, here's a better summary:
the plID (playlist ID) in the song table is different (the OLD id 33), the plID
in the playlist table is the new ID 35, so i have to test them separately. the
song ID's must match
the playlist table's index is the plID, so i gu
All,
I am still new to SQLite and C#. I am wondering if I have
the correct order of 'using' statements in the code below.
In particular, I am wondering if 'using (transaction...)'
should come before 'using (SQLCommand...)'
Any other comments are appreciated.
Thanks,
-Bill
=
On 2013/11/16 20:02, David M. Cotter wrote:
okay i realize my requirements were wrong, here's a better summary:
the plID (playlist ID) in the song table is different (the OLD id 33), the plID
in the playlist table is the new ID 35, so i have to test them separately. the
song ID's must match
t
I'm not sure why this code is breaking:
procedure SaveDatabaseTo(fName:string);
var
TempDB:tsqlitedatabase;
begin
TempDB:=TSQLiteDatabase.Create(fName);
TempDB.ExecSQL('PRAGMA journal_mode = OFF');
db.Backup(TempDB);
tempdb.free;
end;
It fails at the PRAGMA statement. In the CLI, the c
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:19:06 +0100, Petite Abeille
wrote:
>
>On Nov 16, 2013, at 4:11 PM, James K. Lowden wrote:
>
>> The logical equivalent of MERGE is accomplished by one INSERT and one
>> UPDATE inside a user-defined transaction. Given SQLite's locking
>> semantics, it's atomic. Nothing pro
On Nov 16, 2013, at 11:02 PM, Kees Nuyt wrote:
> For the application, the merge would look like a single
> INSERT INTO merge_t statement.
H…. clever lateral thinking, but I doubt this will fly in practice :)
Two main issues:
(1) ‘or ignore’ is most likely inappropriate as unrelated constr
Stephen Chrzanowski wrote:
> I'm not sure why this code is breaking:
>
> procedure SaveDatabaseTo(fName:string);
> var
> TempDB:tsqlitedatabase;
> begin
> TempDB:=TSQLiteDatabase.Create(fName);
> TempDB.ExecSQL('PRAGMA journal_mode = OFF');
> db.Backup(TempDB);
> tempdb.free;
> end;
>
> I
Hello all,
I am writing a server program that reads and writes several different
sqlite databases. Each client program can do one of the following at a
time 1) send a file with a bunch of SQL statements that the server will
run on the appropriate database, or 2) request an entire database file
On 16 Nov 2013, at 11:37pm, Joshua Grauman wrote:
> Or conversely, that if sqlite has the file open to write, my program will
> read a cached version (if reading and writing happen at the same time, I'm
> fine with the reader getting a slightly stale version). But I'm not
> completely clear o
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013:
> Stephen Chrzanowski wrote:
> > I'm not sure why this code is breaking:
> >
> > procedure SaveDatabaseTo(fName:string);
> > var
> > TempDB:tsqlitedatabase;
> > begin
> > TempDB:=TSQLiteDatabase.Create(fName);
> > TempDB.ExecSQL('PRAGMA journal_mode = OFF');
> > db.Ba
Thanks so much for the reply. Sorry for the ignorance, but wouldn't only
the sectors (page cache) that are being written need to be cached? And I
was trying to read up on how sqlite does atomic writes, but doesn't the
way sqlite handles atomic writes guarentee that the file is *always* in a
val
22 matches
Mail list logo
