> I've banged on about this problem and thanks to your assistance it
> seems
> to be resolved now. Perhaps you could update the documentation at
> http://www.sqlite.org/autoinc.html and
> http://www.sqlite.org/lang_createindex.html - I had certainly read
> these many times so a note about
> > > Any comments on this - Richard or Dan?
> >
> > The INTEGER PRIMARY KEY is always included in every index as an
> > implied extra column on the end. If you explicitly add the
> > INTEGER PRIMARY KEY as a column in the index, then you have it
> > in the index twice, which serves no
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:25:35 +0100, Christophe Leske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in
General Discussion of SQLite Database :
>
>>> Any chance to spare the ID field and get an index on the rowid for a
>>> given table?
>> I do not understand the question. Please rephrase.
>> Any chance to spare the ID field and get an index on the rowid for a
>> given table?
> I do not understand the question. Please rephrase. Use more words.
>
Most of the ID fields are primary integer keys which also coincident with the
value of the rowid for a given table. Yes, you
On Nov 13, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Hugh Gibson wrote:
>
> This query:
>
> SELECT * FROM Signals WHERE sUserID='[EMAIL PROTECTED]' AND nRowID >=
> 1932308
> and nRowID <= 1932508
Try either of these:
SELECT * FROM Signals WHERE +sUserID='...' AND nRowID>=... AND
nRowid<=;
SELECT *
> > Any comments on this - Richard or Dan?
>
> The INTEGER PRIMARY KEY is always included in every index as an
> implied extra column on the end. If you explicitly add the INTEGER
> PRIMARY KEY as a column in the index, then you have it in the
> index twice, which serves no purpose
I
On Nov 20, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Christophe Leske wrote:
>
>> The INTEGER PRIMARY KEY is always included in every index as an
>> implied extra column on the end. If you explicitly add the INTEGER
>> PRIMARY KEY as a column in the index, then you have it in the index
>> twice, which serves no
> The INTEGER PRIMARY KEY is always included in every index as an
> implied extra column on the end. If you explicitly add the INTEGER
> PRIMARY KEY as a column in the index, then you have it in the index
> twice, which serves no purpose but does confuse the optimizer. Don't
> do that.
On Nov 20, 2008, at 6:20 AM, Hugh Gibson wrote:
> Any comments on this - Richard or Dan?
The INTEGER PRIMARY KEY is always included in every index as an
implied extra column on the end. If you explicitly add the INTEGER
PRIMARY KEY as a column in the index, then you have it in the index
Any comments on this - Richard or Dan?
Hugh
> This appears to be the same as
> http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/tktview?tn=1893
>
> I've attached a comment there.
>
> This is quite a big trap which I only found when loading up the
> database with a lot of data. What's the timescale for fixing
This appears to be the same as
http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/tktview?tn=1893
I've attached a comment there.
This is quite a big trap which I only found when loading up the database
with a lot of data. What's the timescale for fixing the bug?
I will have to bypass the AUTOINCREMENT functionality
I'm having problems getting good index choice in SQLite 3.6.4 for a field
which is INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT.
I've got the following table:
CREATE TABLE Signals (sSignalID Text DEFAULT '',sText Text DEFAULT
'',sTime Text DEFAULT '',sUserID Text DEFAULT '',nRowID INTEGER PRIMARY
KEY
12 matches
Mail list logo