Darren Duncan wrote:
>> I never understood that restriction. I read in the books: "since we
>> have defined things this ways from a formal point of view there's no
>> room for NULL". And my question is well, why don't you change the
>> definitions to augment the datatype sets with a special constan
cstrader wrote:
> I'm trying create a .dll. The .dll compiles and looks fine and the code runs
> fine in console mode, but the host cannot read the .dll when the sqlite3_open
> line below is uncommented. Any ideas why would be appreciated. thanks!
>
> #include
> #include
>
> #define _SQL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A user complains in ticket #1689 that SQLite does not
> allow triggers in one database to refer to tables in
> a different database or to TEMP tables.
...
> Should I remove the tests from SQLite that prevent
> triggers in one database from referring to tables in
> a diffe
Mrs. Brisby wrote:
Now, if you're feeling like you're on a high horse, go ahead: point out
a single common platform where threads are the necessity.
Here's some hints:
* it's not windows
* it's not unix
* it's not java (closures)
* it's not lisp (closures)
* it's not forth (coroutines)
* it's
Try using UNION instead of OR. Several posts have mentioned that OR can
dissable the use of an index. You're also right about table order being
important, there's information on the wiki about this. I would guess
that the best order is table3, table5, table4, table2, table1 since
you're actuall
I have two versions of the same algorithm. The first operates directly
on the main db table. The second operates on a temp table containing
only the working set. The problem is that the second version is about
20x slower, 1.5 sec versus 30 sec. If the EXISTS line in the second
version is comme
6 matches
Mail list logo
