Hi Keith,
thanks for your response (which partly goes beyond my understanding, but
I'm learning :-)).
But you are not using the same "expression" for selecting, sorting, and
grouping. That is, you need to specify:
SELECT expression, count(distinct id)
FROM artists
GROUP BY expressi
I'd like to essentially commit changes to disk in the middle of the
transaction, resulting in a transaction that is atomic with respect to other
database connections but is two atomic transactions with respect to the
filesystem.
When I first found the locking_mode pragma, my understanding was t
Hi Simon,
Thanks for your tip, this command has found problems, see below.
It should explain this strange behavior with DELETE ?
I have found this procedure on the Web to fix the file:
https://www.2doapp.com/kb/article.php?id=743&oid=38
Is it the correct way or another way exists ?
Kind regards
Remember that fancy collations don't just look at 1 character at a time, they
look at the whole thing, and can do surprising stuff based on that. In this
case the order of preference for the collation looks like "when it's part of a
larger word, then treating 'S' and 'Š' the same is more importa
On 2/8/19 9:11 AM, David Raymond wrote:
> Remember that fancy collations don't just look at 1 character at a time, they
> look at the whole thing, and can do surprising stuff based on that. In this
> case the order of preference for the collation looks like "when it's part of
> a larger word, th
So to make sure I'm understanding it ok, with the new vacuum into command, if
I'm the only user of a file, then the sequence...
open file1
vacuum into file2
close file1
delete file1
rename file2 to file1
...is going to be potentially more than twice as fast as the old...
open file1
vacuum
...a
On 7 Feb 2019, at 9:53pm, Theodore Dubois wrote:
> I'd like to essentially commit changes to disk in the middle of the
> transaction, resulting in a transaction that is atomic with respect to other
> database connections but is two atomic transactions with respect to the
> filesystem.
Would S
On 2/8/19, David Raymond wrote:
> So to make sure I'm understanding it ok, with the new vacuum into command,
> if I'm the only user of a file, then the sequence...
>
> open file1
> vacuum into file2
> close file1
> delete file1
> rename file2 to file1
>
> ...is going to be potentially more than tw
Must be whatever the ICU collating sequence does. It apparently sorts into an
order you like, but does not sort the characters as being "the same". Unless
they are "the same" they will not be in the same group.
The unifuzz "unaccented" collation does sort the two characters as "the same"
(no
If you renamed file1.db to file1.bak, opened file1.bak, vacuum into
file1.db, close file1.bak, you have a backup pre-vacuum (just in case...)
and 'streamlines' the process some-what.
Obviously, you'd have to rename the file back again if the vacuum failed
(out of disk space, etc)
Just a thought,,,
On 8 Feb 2019, at 1:49pm, Ludovic Gasc Lemaire wrote:
> Thanks for your tip, this command has found problems, see below.
> It should explain this strange behavior with DELETE ?
Yes. The corruption you have found in your database can explain lots of weird
and non-standard behaviour. In fact, e
Remember that fancy collations don't just look at 1 character at a time, they look
at the whole thing, and can do surprising stuff based on that. In this case the
order of preference for the collation looks like "when it's part of a larger
word, then treating 'S' and 'Š' the same is more import
I see 3.27 was released yesterday (and quickly followed up with 3.27.1.) I only
discovered this because the post asking about VACUUM INTO gave me a clue that
this might be a newly-released feature, so I went to the release-history page.
We’ve been awaiting this release because it fixes a bad que
> Am 08.02.2019 um 18:43 schrieb Jens Alfke :
>
> I see 3.27 was released yesterday (and quickly followed up with 3.27.1.) I
The announcement was on the sqlite-annou...@mailinglists.sqlite.org list.
3.27 was ready to go, a bug was found, so 3.27.1 was announced today, so
everyone could skip
Thanks all! Super helpful.
Ben
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 11:55 AM Ben Asher wrote:
> Hi there! We're having a debate at my company about date storage in
> SQLite. SQLite has builtin support for ISO8601 in its date functions, so
> some folks have started storing dates as ISO8601 SQLite-compatible d
As mentioned the release announcements is a separate mailing list, so people
can get those without being deluged by stuff from this list. Pasting the
announcement here.
-Original Message-
From: sqlite-announce [mailto:sqlite-announce-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of
Richard Hipp
Sent:
On 8 Feb 2019, at 6:25pm, David Raymond wrote:
> https://sqlite.org/releaselog/3_27_1.html
"Add options "--expanded", "--normalized", "--plain", "--profile", "--row",
"--stmt", and "--close" to the ".trace" command."
Is there a discussion of these anywhere ?
Simon.
__
Non-scientific "let's just try it" results
Short version:
Original file had been vacuumed already as the last thing that had happened to
it.
File size: 20,467,359,744
sqlite> vacuum into 'vac_into.sqlite';
Run Time: real 589.577 user 222.941029 sys 57.829571
sqlite> vacuum;
Run Time: real 1429.
On 2/8/19, Simon Slavin wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2019, at 6:25pm, David Raymond wrote:
>
>> https://sqlite.org/releaselog/3_27_1.html
>
> "Add options "--expanded", "--normalized", "--plain", "--profile", "--row",
> "--stmt", and "--close" to the ".trace" command."
>
> Is there a discussion of these an
On 2/8/19, David Raymond wrote:
> Non-scientific "let's just try it" results
>
> Short version:
> Original file had been vacuumed already as the last thing that had happened
> to it.
> File size: 20,467,359,744
>
> sqlite> vacuum into 'vac_into.sqlite';
> Run Time: real 589.577 user 222.941029 sys
But now, here's the weird part ladies and gentlemen.
I started this on one drive, vacuum into completed, but then I had to do real
work on that drive, so copied the file over to an unused drive to do the
previously reported timing without it being biased by other things going on.
But I saw some
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
David Raymond wrote:
> SQLite version 3.27.1 is now available on the SQLite website:
>
> https://sqlite.org/
> https://sqlite.org/download.html
> https://sqlite.org/releaselog/3_27_1.html
Release notes https://sqlite.org/releaselog/3_27_1.html say:
=== BEGIN QUOTE ===
Added the remove_diac
Hmm. So after a normal vacuum, "Non-sequential pages" is basically 1 for
everything, tables and indexes alike. On a read-only "vacuum into" it's
anywhere from 22% to 99.5%, usually being more towards 99%.
Numbers for "Table X without any indicies" seem identical apart from the
Non-sequential pa
24 matches
Mail list logo
