ode. Were there in your dump? That would imply that a data
node was lost (its CRC failed, perhaps, and wasn't caught in time to be
written out elsewhere).
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse at intel.com Intel Corporation
to avoid doing too many
writes, obviously, but that's true for *all* flash-based storage, even
the ones which are pretending to be spinning rust and hiding the
details from the OS.
--
David WoodhouseOpen Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse at intel.com Intel Corporation
On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 21:25 -0400, Donald Griggs wrote:
>
> -- One mode does require that power not be removed abruptly from the eMMC
> controller (but they still claim durability even in the face of a kernel
> panic)
That's true of *all* modes of operation of most MMC and SSD class
devices. The
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 21:10 -0600, Mike Owens wrote:
> The problem is that this is the very bone of contention in the reply-to
> religious war.
Religious as in there are strongly-held beliefs on both sides, but only
one is really based in logic and common sense? :)
> Is it not? I may be wrong, b
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 12:45 +0200, R.Smith wrote:
> Ok, I've found the source of the list duplications.
>
> Some emails (Such as the one by J.K. Lowden 2-March-2015 re: Characters
> corrupt after importing...) contains a "Reply-To" field in the header
> with both list addresses which must have s
On Sat, 2015-02-28 at 14:10 -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
>
> My comment on "whoever" is meant to be plural.
>
> I think as a general principle that whenever people reply to list messages,
> they
> look at the headers of the message they are writing and make sure the list
> doesn't appear twice
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 16:00 +0200, RSmith wrote:
> On 2014/11/05 15:26, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 15:13 +0200, RSmith wrote:
> > I don't think it's anything to do with the table data being special,
> is it? Isn't it generically true that fo
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 15:13 +0200, RSmith wrote:
> On 2014/11/05 14:13, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > After playing a little with SQLite as a DBMS for Bugzilla, I've discovered
> > that LEFT/INNER join affects query plan in a bad way
> > even for semantically equal queries:
> >
> > SE
>
> On 2014/11/04 21:34, jose isaias cabrera wrote:
>> Greetings!
>>
>> I have an application that is written for x32 machines. However, we now
>> have a few machines that are x64 and all is well when we are using the
>> precompiled x32 DLLs provided by http://www.sqlite.org/download.html.
>> Cha
On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 12:27 -0400, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:33:59 +0100
> Steinar Midtskogen wrote:
>
> > Is there a way to prevent the -wal and -shm files from being deleted
> > after use, so that I can have them always have the right group? Or is
> > there a way to tell
ing that it's on the
radar is perfectly sufficient. Now I can commit my hackish workaround to
rewrite certain special-case queries to optimise the output of the
current query planner for them, and still sleep at night :)
Thanks.
> Unless, of course, you can propose a patch and they turn ou
On Thu, 2014-09-25 at 11:13 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> I suggested a couple of specific optimisations which the query planner
> might be able to make, which should hopefully have benefits wider than
> just my own use case. Are those not viable?
I'm preparing to commi
On Tue, 2014-09-23 at 17:48 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> That looks really promising; thanks for all this work.
>
> Tristan, you have a comprehensive set of benchmarks for Evolution's
> addressbook; is it possible for someone else to run those or would it
> take more of
On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 19:36 -0600, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
> Interesting. From that code you might want to try something like this:
>
> SELECT uid, vcard, bdata
> FROM folder_id
> WHERE uid in ( select uid FROM email_list where value like 'p%'
>union
> select u
On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 06:13 -0600, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
> Would it not be more efficient to skip the join altogether since all
> you want is the list of uid's, and assuming that you have maintained
> the referential integrity of your database mail_list(list_uid)
> references main(uid)?
>
> SELE
On Fri, 2014-09-19 at 21:14 -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
> The 50% faster number above is not about better query plans.
Speaking of better query plans, though... here's a query which takes
about 1700ms on my data set, followed by a couple of optimisations which
seem like they might be generically u
On Fri, 2014-09-19 at 21:14 -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
> The latest SQLite 3.8.7 alpha version (available on the download page
> http://www.sqlite.org/download.html) is 50% faster than the 3.7.17 release
> from 16 months ago. That is to say, it does 50% more work using the same
> number of CPU cyc
On Fri, 2014-09-12 at 15:35 -0600, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> What happens if you phrase it like this?
>
>SELECT DISTINCT summary.uid, summary.vcard
> FROM folder_id AS summary
> LEFT JOIN 'folder_id_email_list' AS email_list
>ON email_list.uid = summary.uid
> AND email_list.va
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 at 21:21:43 -0800, Igor Tandetnik wrote
> Why are you using outer joins when your WHERE clause discards
> unmatched records anyway? If you replace LEFT OUTER with INNER, the
> end result would be exactly the same.
Not for all queries.
Consider the query
(or (beginswith "full
19 matches
Mail list logo