here's a table:
i want to delete from the table all records with plID = 1, but ONLY those that
have a corresponding record where plID == 851090 and where that record's soID
matches the one where plID = 1
so the query should delete rows 8-12, but leave 1-2 intact (and also leave 3-7)
there
you guys are flippin' gods ya know that right?
thanks!
On Jun 19, 2014, at 10:26 PM, Igor Tandetnik <i...@tandetnik.org> wrote:
> On 6/20/2014 1:20 AM, David M. Cotter wrote:
>> i want to delete from the table all records with plID = 1, but ONLY those
>> that have a corre
> here's a table:
the list helpfully deletes enclosed pictures, even if they're wicked small..
here's the actual table:
http://karaoke.kjams.com/screenshots/table.png
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
here's a table:
i want to delete from the table all records with plID = 1, but ONLY those that
have a corresponding record where plID == 851090 and where that record's soID
matches the one where plID = 1
so the query should delete rows 8-12, but leave 1-2 intact (and also leave 3-7)
there
> SELECT DISTINCT column FROM table WHERE column not NULL;
this is exactly what I needed, thanks!
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
n i'd ask again, this time i'd get a 4, repeat above
then ask again, get nothing, and i'd be done
On Jun 17, 2014, at 10:54 PM, David M. Cotter <d...@kjams.com> wrote:
> i have a table with a numeric column (not the key column)
> i want to obtain from this table a list of unique numbers
i have a table with a numeric column (not the key column)
i want to obtain from this table a list of unique numbers appearing in that one
column
some cells in the column may have nothing, some may have duplicate numbers eg:
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 4
> _
> _
> 4
> _
note that "_" means "no data". i want
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
i have a "song" table S that has "songID", "playlistID", and "stale" (boolean)
as columns (among others)
i have a "playlist" table P that has "playlistID" and "songID" as columns
(among others)
for a particular playlistID X, i want to delete all rows from P who's
(P.playlistID == S.playlistID
ah! this was my answer! thanks!
On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:03 AM, Igor Tandetnik <i...@tandetnik.org> wrote:
> On 11/10/2013 8:12 PM, David M. Cotter wrote:
>> what i did before SQL was to just tell the new song (which may have updated
>> / corrected meta data) to have the
i've got say a music database
the unique "song ID" is the "integer primary key", used to look up the song and
all it's data
sometimes an update of the meta data comes along, so i want to update to the
new list, but preserve the old song IDs (so playlists that refer to them still
link up)
> Did you read the page at the URL I gave ? It answers the question.
yes the page shows an extremely unhelpful comparison:
> SELECT count(*) FROM enrondata1 WHERE content MATCH 'linux'; /* 0.03 seconds
> */
> SELECT count(*) FROM enrondata2 WHERE content LIKE '%linux%'; /* 22.5 seconds
> */
>> SELECT p.piIx FROM playlist p JOIN song s ON p.soID = s.soID WHERE p.plID =
>> 99662 AND (s.name LIKE "%love％" OR s.arts LIKE "％love％" OR s.pUSD LIKE
>> "％love％" OR s.pbls LIKE "％love％" OR s.genr LIKE "％love％") ORDER BY s.pbls
>> ASC, s.name ASC, s.albm ASC, p.piIx ASC
>
> Good grief, no
>> iTunes has "update search results as you type" speed even when you have a
>> hundred thousand songs and you're searching on a partial string on all meta
>> data columns.
>>
>> how on earth do they do that?
>>
>> i'm under the impression it uses CoreData, which in turn uses SQLite under
>>
iTunes has "update search results as you type" speed even when you have a
hundred thousand songs and you're searching on a partial string on all meta
data columns.
how on earth do they do that?
i'm under the impression it uses CoreData, which in turn uses SQLite under the
hood.
how can i
or aborts do i then just
"merge" the store DB with the main DB, but this depends on the ability to run a
single "merge" command?
is there such a thing?
On Feb 6, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Simon Slavin wrote:
>
> On 6 Feb 2011, at 5:42pm, David M. Cotter wrote:
>
>>> If
> If you don't need this behaviour because you're confident you'll never get a
> clash, then you could accumulate your INSERTs in memory, then blast through
> them when you would previously have just done the COMMIT.
i will never have a clash because i manage the primary keys myself.
is there
forgive my not understanding this but i'm trying to be extremely clear and i am
not sure from your answer whether you have understood my question.
> In SQLite every write is in a transaction whether you declare one with BEGIN
> or not. If you don't declare a transaction, SQLite invisibly
; or by executing insert/update/delete after "begin") no
> other connection can start a writing transaction (it still can do
> read-only transactions for a while).
>
> If you need a different behavior you need to use some other DBMS.
>
>
> Pavel
>
> On Sat, Feb 5,
> Transactions are per-connection and have nothing to do
> with threads. If you want different transactions in each thread you
> need to make one connection for each thread. But those transactions
> won't be able to execute simultaneously.
so if i open a separate connection on each thread
then
i'm sure this topic has been beaten to death but i just really want to make
sure.
i'm using ONE database, and one handle to it on all threads
here's a theoretical timeline
--
1) thread 1
begin transaction
do bunches of stuff
2) thread 2
begin transaction
do bunches of stuff
21 matches
Mail list logo
