In python sqlite3 program, if I call .execute() multiple times then
call .commit(). Does it ensure that all the sqlite3 commands specified
by execute()'s either all take effect or none effect?
In other words, if any error occurs while running the sqlite3 commands
specified in execute(), what
Alexey Podogov wrote:
>
> Also, the issue can't be reproduced if:
> - Cache size is set to 0; or
> - Journal mode is WAL; or
> - Password for database is too short (please see examples in the
> demo code).
>
Thanks for the report. I'm looking into it now.
--
Joe Mistachkin
"Serverless" has worked flawlessly since inception. Why change now...?
The marketing buzzword usage will disappear...long before Dr Hipp convinces
the list that email is dead even.
Regards.
Brian P Curley
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 5:39 PM Jim Dodgen wrote:
> I vote for ignoring the marketing
I vote for ignoring the marketing types and stick with "serverless"
Jim "Jed" Dodgen
j...@dodgen.us
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:20 AM Thomas Kurz wrote:
> I would not choose a new wording. "Serverless" is correct, and just
> because others start using "serverless" in a wrong manner, I don't
Hi SQLite development team.
I think that I found a bug in SQLite or in System.Data.SQLite and isolated the
case when it happens. In short, the newly added row can be missed if it is
requested from another connection.
The bug is quite stable and can be reproduced on my demo application each
Excuse the top posting. This perhaps:
create table srcdata
(
CLS1text not null,
CLS2integer not null,
START integer not null,
END integer not null
);
insert into srcdata values ('ABC1',100,0,1);
insert into srcdata values ('ABC1',100,1,1);
insert into srcdata
I would not choose a new wording. "Serverless" is correct, and just because
others start using "serverless" in a wrong manner, I don't see any need for a
change.
Just my 2 cts.
- Original Message -
From: Richard Hipp
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Sent: Monday, January
Thank you for the fast fix!
Best,
Lalit
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 15:07, Dan Kennedy wrote:
>
> On 29/1/63 20:09, Lalit Maganti wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Just wanted to check up on this to see if this issue is something which
> is
> > being tracked and if there was a potential fix in the
On 29/1/63 20:09, Lalit Maganti wrote:
Hi folks,
Just wanted to check up on this to see if this issue is something which is
being tracked and if there was a potential fix in the works?
Thanks for the excellent bug report and minimal reproduction case. Now
fixed here:
Hi,
I am emailing to ask if someone could advise me how to create a query or
queries which will collapse some data based on a limited number of constraints.
I am currently attempting to complete this task using DB Browser for SQLite. I
have tried to write a WITH RECLUSIVE statement as I think
It's going to run both since you asked it to. Even if it was in a compiled
language where the compiler could look ahead and was looking to implement that
sort of optimization, then for example there still might be triggers on the
table which would need to be run, or other constraints on the
On 1/29/20, Markus Winand wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I think there might be a glitch in the way SQLite 3.31.x derives the
> collation information from the expression of a generated column.
I think the current behavior is correct.
If you want a column to have a non-standard collating sequence, you
should
Hi!
I think there might be a glitch in the way SQLite 3.31.x derives the collation
information from the expression of a generated column.
In particular, COLLATE inside the AS parens seems to be ignored, but it is
honoured after the parens:
SQLite version 3.31.1 2020-01-27 19:55:54
Enter
On Dienstag, 28. Januar 2020 18:26:05 CET Brüns, Stefan wrote:
>
> On armv7l, there is another failure in the fuzztests, with and without the
> patch:
> sessionfuzz-data1.db: sessionfuzz: ./sqlite3.c:57249: pager_open_journal:
> Assertion `rc!=SQLITE_OK || isOpen(pPager->jfd)' failed.
I had
On Mittwoch, 29. Januar 2020 13:40:44 CET Richard Hipp wrote:
> Please retry using this check-in:
> https://www.sqlite.org/src/info/b20503aaf5b6595a
The failings test now pass on all architectures:
- ix86/x86_64
- armv7hl, aarch64
- ppc32be, ppc64be, ppc64le
- s390x
Kind regards,
Stefan
> On
Hi folks,
Just wanted to check up on this to see if this issue is something which is
being tracked and if there was a potential fix in the works?
Thanks,
Lalit
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 15:13, Lalit Maganti wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I believe that I have found a bug in the virtual table bytecode
On 1/28/20, rgarnett wrote:
> the step function fails
> with an IO Error Short Read.The VFS I am using I developed myself from the
> demo on the sqLite website. I suspect there may be problems with this code
I suspect you are correct.
The SQLITE_IOERR_SHORT_READ is an error code that is only
Please retry using this check-in:
https://www.sqlite.org/src/info/b20503aaf5b6595a
On 1/28/20, Brüns, Stefan wrote:
> On Dienstag, 28. Januar 2020 18:26:05 CET Brüns, Stefan wrote:
>> On Dienstag, 28. Januar 2020 16:16:01 CET Richard Hipp wrote:
>> > On 1/27/20, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
>> > > Hi,
On 1/29/20 1:42 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
Hi,
I have two python programs using sqlite3. They function the same,
except the following.
In the first, execute() is called in batches and then commit() is
called following them. In the second, commit() is called after each
execute(). It seems that the
On Tuesday, 28 January, 2020 23:42, Peng Yu wrote:
>I have two python programs using sqlite3. They function the same,
>except the following.
I presume this means you are using the standard (as in included with the
standard Python distribution) sqlite3 module? There are other ways to use
If you could provide more information then maybe someone can suggest a reason
or even a solution for the effect you are seeing. Some of the following may be
helpful.
What schema are you using?
Which journal mode is your database running in?
What kind of statements are executed?
How are you
Hi,
I have two python programs using sqlite3. They function the same,
except the following.
In the first, execute() is called in batches and then commit() is
called following them. In the second, commit() is called after each
execute(). It seems that the second case is faster (I can not separate
"In-process" describes it best for me.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:16 AM Darren Duncan
wrote:
> The concepts I like the best so far are "in-process" or "integrated" or
> something library-themed. -- Darren Duncan
>
> On 2020-01-27 2:18 p.m., Richard Hipp wrote:
> > For many years I have
The concepts I like the best so far are "in-process" or "integrated" or
something library-themed. -- Darren Duncan
On 2020-01-27 2:18 p.m., Richard Hipp wrote:
For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server
> "What is the word for that programming methodology that existed since the
> beginning when there were no threads and everything was single-task?"
Real Mode.
- Deon
> On Jan 28, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Roman Fleysher
> wrote:
>
> What is the word for that programming methodology that existed
On 1/29/2020 12:04 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
Suppose that I have the following command, which writes two entries
with the same key. So the 1st entry will be overwritten by the 2nd
entry. Therefore, there is no need to write the 1st entry. Is sqlite3
smart enough to not to write the 1st entry? Or it
Suppose that I have the following command, which writes two entries
with the same key. So the 1st entry will be overwritten by the 2nd
entry. Therefore, there is no need to write the 1st entry. Is sqlite3
smart enough to not to write the 1st entry? Or it will write both the
1st entry and the 2nd
HiI am using sqLite3 on an embedded system (STM32H743VI) using, freeRTOS,
fatFS and an SD Card using the HAL Drivers and the SDMMC1 interface.The
database works fine with doubles, integers and chars, but as soon as I
attempt to insert a record with a bound text field the step function fails
with
As I understand it, the barrier in that patch ensures that for whichever
thread executes the if(!sqlite3GlobalConfig.mutex.xMutexAlloc codepath)
{...}, the write to pTo->xMutexAlloc will be stored after the rest of the
xMutex* field writes. But there's nothing preventing another thread
*loading*
On 1/28/20, Oystein Eftevaag wrote:
> in sqlite3MutexInit() sqlite3GlobalConfig.mutex.xMutexAlloc
> can be read as being set on a core, while the rest of the initialization
> done in sqlite3MutexInit() still is being read as unset.
Doesn't the memory barrier at
Hi folks,
Data races in sqlite3_initialize was previously reported in
https://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org/msg94225.html
and
a fix landed, however while investigating internal TSan reports of this, as
far as we can tell the issue is still present (on non-x86 platforms
On 28 Jan 2020, at 6:05pm, Roman Fleysher
wrote:
> I would like to ask, why is it so important to indicate that SQLite, in
> reference to threads or client/server, " does not work that way". I think
> this might help to find the words to describe it.
What a great point.
As a (retired)
Dear Richard and SQLiters,
I would like to ask, why is it so important to indicate that SQLite, in
reference to threads or client/server, " does not work that way". I think this
might help to find the words to describe it. Is it because some embedded
systems do not support threads? Is it
My 2ct:
In-stack callable RDBMS.
--
A. J. Millan
> Mensaje original
> De: Richard Hipp Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:20:25 -0800
>
>For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
>to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
>RDBMSes. "Serverless"
Warren Young, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 02:27 PM, wrote...
>
> On Jan 28, 2020, at 9:25 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> >
> > On 1/28/20, Jan Danielsson wrote:
> >> On 2020-01-28 00:19, Richard Hipp wrote:
> >>> daemon-less?
> >>
> >> This is my favorite, the only problem is that it is culturally
On Jan 28, 2020, at 9:25 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> On 1/28/20, Jan Danielsson wrote:
>> On 2020-01-28 00:19, Richard Hipp wrote:
>>> daemon-less?
>>
>> This is my favorite, the only problem is that it is culturally more a
>> Unix-y term.
>
> Since suggesting daemon-less, someone else
BYOT -> Bring Your Own Thread
Put another way: SQLITE is a BYOT Library.
- Deon
-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users On Behalf Of
Richard Hipp
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 2:19 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
For
This is a very important design distinction, not just implementation detail, If
you know and internalize up front that SQLITE will run only on the thread you
give it, you can architect your application better from the beginning and not
e.g. go down one path initially and wonder how the get
The first thing that came to mind was "client-only", though that made me
think of an old saying about lawyers,
He who represents himself has a fool for a client.
... Otherwise "server-free" has a very nice ring to it.
Carl
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Graham Holden wrote:
> Tuesday, January
On Dienstag, 28. Januar 2020 18:26:05 CET Brüns, Stefan wrote:
> On Dienstag, 28. Januar 2020 16:16:01 CET Richard Hipp wrote:
> > On 1/27/20, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I came across a problem during mate test, where fuzzcheck ends with
> > > segfault.
> > > The problem appears
> On Jan 28, 2020, at 3:18 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> Things like MySQL-embedded and H2 run a "server" as a thread instead
> of as a separate process. ... So this is really the
> same thing as a server using IPC except that the server runs in the
> same address space as the client.
I see
On Dienstag, 28. Januar 2020 16:16:01 CET Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 1/27/20, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I came across a problem during mate test, where fuzzcheck ends with
> > segfault.
> > The problem appears to be only on [s390x]. Other architectures are
> > working fine.
>
> Fixed by
Tuesday, January 28, 2020, 4:25:49 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> Since suggesting daemon-less, someone else (I'll have to research who,
> exactly) suggested "server-free", which I think I like more.
What? A free server with every copy of SQLite?
That sounds like a good deal :-)
Graham
On 1/28/20, Jan Danielsson wrote:
> On 2020-01-28 00:19, Richard Hipp wrote:
>> daemon-less?
>
>This is my favorite, the only problem is that it is culturally more a
> Unix-y term.
Since suggesting daemon-less, someone else (I'll have to research who,
exactly) suggested "server-free", which
On 2020-01-28 00:19, Richard Hipp wrote:
> daemon-less?
This is my favorite, the only problem is that it is culturally more a
Unix-y term.
But there are plenty of other good suggestions from this thread.
- embedded
- self-contained
- in-process
- integrated
- connectionless
On 1/27/20, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I came across a problem during mate test, where fuzzcheck ends with
> segfault.
> The problem appears to be only on [s390x]. Other architectures are
> working fine.
Fixed by check-in https://www.sqlite.org/src/info/04885763c4cd00cb
Thanks for the
I think of it as direct access, though I could see people confusing that with
Windows Server DirectAccess.
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
I like the slightly opaque "compact".
A
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 13:31, Donald Shepherd wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 12:26 am, Jose Isaias Cabrera
> wrote:
>
> >
> > R Smith, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 06:39 AM, wrote...
> > >
> > > I do not have a great suggestion to add, but to observe
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 12:26 am, Jose Isaias Cabrera
wrote:
>
> R Smith, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 06:39 AM, wrote...
> >
> > I do not have a great suggestion to add, but to observe that the best
> > suggestions I think are: NOT changing, (or if we have to) "Server-Free"
> > or "Localized".
>
R Smith, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 06:39 AM, wrote...
>
> I do not have a great suggestion to add, but to observe that the best
> suggestions I think are: NOT changing, (or if we have to) "Server-Free"
> or "Localized".
I agree with these, but localize is another buzz word for translation.
Warren Young, on Monday, January 27, 2020 07:36 PM, wrote...
>
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> >
> > "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me.”
>
> “Serverless” it a screwy buzzword anyway, because of course
As R Smith pointed out, you already have a good description in your
existing documentation: "SQLite is a self-contained, server-free,
zero-configuration ... "
I would also throw in the term "library", because it is what it is. Sqlite
is just non-executable code that doesn't function on it's own.
On Tue, 2020-01-28 at 10:11 +1100, John McMahon wrote:
> Define what "serverless" means to you in the SQLite context and provide
> a link or pop-up to that definition wherever "serverless" occurs in the
> documentation. Perhaps also include what it doesn't mean if you think
> this is becoming an
I do not have a great suggestion to add, but to observe that the best
suggestions I think are: NOT changing, (or if we have to) "Server-Free"
or "Localized".
Especially when you consider the statement at the top of typical SQLite
docs might read:
"SQLite is a self-contained, server-free,
On 1/28/20, Howard Chu wrote:
>
> Wait, really? AFAICS embedded means in-process, no IPC required to operate.
>
Things like MySQL-embedded and H2 run a "server" as a thread instead
of as a separate process. Clients then use Inter-Thread Communication
rather than Inter-Process Communication to
stack-capturing
It captures the stack of the host.
stack-dependent
pointer-based
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Rowan Worth wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 06:19, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
>> Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
>> "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
>> running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
>>
Perhaps "server" is not the right emphasis? Maybe it is the client? Thus,
"clientless"? This means that each SQlite session serves itself.
Self-sufficient.
Roman
From: sqlite-users on behalf of
Richard Hipp
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 5:18 PM
To: General
in-process ?
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:19 AM Richard Hipp wrote:
> daemon-less?
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> d...@sqlite.org
> ___
> sqlite-users mailing list
> sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
>
Hi
How about recursive one like GNU?
Say, "SQLiteS/TL" exapanding to "Sqlite is Server Less/Thread Less"
Nataraj S Narayan
Richard Hipp writes:
> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
>
Hello Richard !
I'm still getting this error:
fossil clone http://www3.sqlite.org/cgi/src sqlite.fossil
server says: 500 Server Malfunction
Clone done, sent: 256 received: 217 ip: 64.225.41.2
server returned an error - clone aborted
Cheers !
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 16:13 Cory Nelson wrote:
> in-situ
>
> I think this distinguishes sqlite as being different from an "in-proc yet
> separate server".
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:19 PM Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> > to
in-situ
I think this distinguishes sqlite as being different from an "in-proc yet
separate server".
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:19 PM Richard Hipp wrote:
> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:19 PM Richard Hipp wrote:
> How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of
> "serverless" to mean "without a server"?
Don't. I'm with Warren, Jens, Stephen on this one.
Keep it, but make a new sqlite.org/serverless doc page,
and link to it when you
On 27-1-2020 23:18, Richard Hipp wrote:
> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> seems to mean "without a server".
>
Maybe "edge" database ? Or "local" database ? Both are trending terms, on
the theme of taking control and performance back from the cloud.
"Embedded" would be technically good, but is often associated with devices
and small things these days.
Le mar. 28 janv. 2020 à 05:58, Rowan Worth a écrit
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 06:19, Richard Hipp wrote:
> Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
> "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
> running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
> embedded RDBMSes other than
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 05:18:45PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote:
> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
...
> So what do I call
Edit, that last part should say "skim server" :D
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 10:54 PM David Baird wrote:
> How about "skim server"? So if, "server" means a whole server, then like
> whole milk versus skim milk, a fraction of a server becomes severless :)
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 9:57 PM Stephen
How about "skim server"? So if, "server" means a whole server, then like
whole milk versus skim milk, a fraction of a server becomes severless :)
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 9:57 PM Stephen Chrzanowski
wrote:
> I'd stick with "serverless". The marketing teams that make "serverless"
> mean that
I'd stick with "serverless". The marketing teams that make "serverless"
mean that websites don't run with "servers" are I-D-TEN-Ts. It's a fad
phrase that'll go away eventually. I understand marketing, and its
purpose, but, in this case, they're pushing it.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:31 PM sub
Also maybe Slipstreamed?
-Neal
On Monday, January 27, 2020, sub sk79 wrote:
> How about Seamless, Integrated or Baked-in?
>
> -Neal
>
> On Monday, January 27, 2020, Warren Young wrote:
>
>> On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>> >
>> > "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word
Standalone (library / database provider )
native
header-only (almost)
there's an entry on 'standalone programs' in wikipedia, and there's lots of
other libraries that have standalone versions, but it's not a very well
defined word.
in-process is probably closest (in-process database
SQLite is your everywhere database, except on servers ;)
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:12 PM sub sk79 wrote:
> How about Seamless, Integrated or Baked-in?
>
> -Neal
>
> On Monday, January 27, 2020, Warren Young wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> > >
> > > "serverless"
How about Seamless, Integrated or Baked-in?
-Neal
On Monday, January 27, 2020, Warren Young wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> >
> > "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me.”
>
> “Serverless” it a
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 2:18 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."
I hate this buzzword. It's especially confusing because peer-to-peer
architectures are also validly
On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me.”
“Serverless” it a screwy buzzword anyway, because of course there’s still a
server under its new meaning.
My vote? Keep using the
I'll throw in "embedded", but I'd vote for "self contained" too :-)
> On 27. Jan 2020, at 23:57, Jay Kreibich wrote:
>
> I often describe it as “self contained.”
>
> -j
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jan 27, 2020, at 4:19 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>>
>> For many years I have described
In C/C++ the closest concept is a Header Only Library.
Except that SQLITE is not only C+++, and it's not header only...
Library Only Implementation?
In-Proc / In-Thread Library?
Self Contained Library?
Looks like I'm on a generally "Library" theme here...
- Deon
-Original Message-
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor
less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean
so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -
that's
On 27 Jan 2020, at 11:53pm, Donald Shepherd wrote:
> In-process? Same concept but defining it by what it is rather than what it
> isn't.
This comes closest to what I think needs stating. What you're trying to say is
that there's no process (on the accessing computer or some other computer
Server-free sounds good. Standalone too. Integrated maybe?
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 17:54 Donald Shepherd
wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 10:19 am, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> > daemon-less?
> > --
> > D. Richard Hipp
> > d...@sqlite.org
>
>
> In-process? Same concept but defining it by what it is
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 10:19 am, Richard Hipp wrote:
> daemon-less?
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> d...@sqlite.org
In-process? Same concept but defining it by what it is rather than what it
isn't.
Regards,
Donald Shepherd.
>
___
sqlite-users mailing
"Server-free"? It's reasonably close to serverless, but doesn't have the
conflicting meaning.
Jen
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 05:18:45PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote:
> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server
daemon-less?
--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Define what "serverless" means to you in the SQLite context and provide
a link or pop-up to that definition wherever "serverless" occurs in the
documentation. Perhaps also include what it doesn't mean if you think
this is becoming an issue.
How others choose to define "serverless" should not
standalone seems reasonable.
To confuse things further, I have seen Sqlite embedded in an embedded
web server, serverless doesn't fit that case.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 9:45 AM Jose Isaias Cabrera wrote:
>
>
> Richard Hipp, on Monday, January 27, 2020 05:18 PM, wrote...
> >
> > For many years
I often describe it as “self contained.”
-j
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 4:19 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes. "Serverless"
Richard Hipp, on Monday, January 27, 2020 05:18 PM, wrote...
>
> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> seems to mean
I think of it as being "standalone."
Gerry Snyder
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 3:19 PM Richard Hipp wrote:
> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural
On 27 Jan 2020, at 22:18, Richard Hipp wrote:
> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> seems to mean "without a server".
>
>
Runtimeless?
Not sure if the word runtimeless would be accurate to describe SQLite.
I'm not sure if it is even a word, I'm not a native english speaker.
But here is my contribution.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 7:19 PM Richard Hipp wrote:
> For many years I have described SQLite as being
Client (only) db
Sequential db
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 5:27 PM Peter da Silva wrote:
> Local?
>
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020, 16:19 Richard Hipp, wrote:
>
> > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
>
Local?
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020, 16:19 Richard Hipp, wrote:
> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> seems to mean "without a
I like "NO-SERVER"
-Original Message-
From: Richard Hipp
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Sent: Mon, Jan 27, 2020 2:18 pm
Subject: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
to distinguish it from the more
For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
seems to mean "without a server".
But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular
On Monday, 27 January, 2020 10:31, James K. Lowden
wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 12:01:32 -0700
>"Keith Medcalf" wrote:
>> Now that the table exists, use "SELECT * FROM " to determine
>> the number of columns in the table (which will include computed
>> always columns, if any).
>...
>>
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 12:01:32 -0700
"Keith Medcalf" wrote:
> Now that the table exists, use "SELECT * FROM " to determine
> the number of columns in the table (which will include computed
> always columns, if any).
...
> Otherwise, Richard *may* make some changes to the .import logic which
>
On 1/27/20, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
> The problem appears to be only on this arches.
That probably means it is an EBCDIC problem.
We have no way of replicating or debugging this problem as we have no
access to an s390 machine. Can RedHat perhaps provide one of the
SQLite developers with a
David Raymond, on Monday, January 27, 2020 10:32 AM, wrote...
[clip]
> (c.WYear = 2020) is a perfectly valid expression... that's returning a
> boolean (well, int)
> So you're comparing c.WYear (from the subquery) against a boolean.
Yep, this little bit I knew. :-)
> (Others have replied with
701 - 800 of 113868 matches
Mail list logo
