f of liubin liu
Sent: Fri 5/14/2010 1:20 AM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] multi processes, so many errores of SQLITE_BUSY and
SQLITE_MISUSE
How to rollback current transaction?
Pavel Ivanov-2 wrote:
>
>> I assume you want the sqllite3_stmt to work -- so you ne
AM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] multi processes, so many errores of SQLITE_BUSY and
SQLITE_MISUSE
How to rollback current transaction?
Pavel Ivanov-2 wrote:
>
>> I assume you want the sqllite3_stmt to work -- so you need to loop that
>> while it's bu
>> I assume you want the sqllite3_stmt to work -- so you need to loop that
>>> while it's busy.
>>>
>>> Michael D. Black
>>> Senior Scientist
>>> Northrop Grumman Mission Systems
>>>
>>>
>>> ____
>>>
>>> From
y please correct me if I'm wrong on this one...
>>> I think sqlite can work with multiple processes just doing read-onliy
>>> operations (like SELECT). It's just the write operations
>>> (INSERT/UPDATE) which will cause SQLITE_BUSY to occur.
>>>
>>> Michael D.
> Perhaps SQLite should have a no-nonsense approach to this issue and
> introduce some determinism, even in a primitive way. I find it worst
> than unfair, as the waiting process can do absolutely nothing against
> the situation where it is "ignored".
Unfortunately it's impossible to do that
> > In my low-concurrency, familly-business context, I have no problem at
> > all setting 3 hours timeout using the built-in function, when the
> > slowest transaction may only take less than 5 minutes.
>
>With this condition as a 4th one in your list and with 5th one stating
>that you have less
> In my low-concurrency, familly-business context, I have no problem at
> all setting 3 hours timeout using the built-in function, when the
> slowest transaction may only take less than 5 minutes.
With this condition as a 4th one in your list and with 5th one stating
that you have less than 30
Let me take a reality check for the case of my own usage. If I
guarantee that the following conditions are all true:
All R^n (Read-Read-...-Read) atomic operations are enclosed in BEGIN
transactions.
All W^n (Write-Write-...-Write) and RMW (Read-Modify-Write) atomic
operations are enclosed
t;> SQLITE_MISUSE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I see many SQLITE_BUSY returned from sqlite3_finalize(). Are they memory
>>> leak
>>> because it don't succeed in finalizing the sqlite3_stmt pointer?
>>>
>>>
&g
handler instead. This guy seems to have stressed it pretty
> hard.
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael D. Black
> Senior Scientist
> Northrop Grumman Mission Systems
>
>
> ____________
>
> From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org on behalf of Pavel Ivanov
> Sent: Thu 5/13/2010 6:40 A
>
>
> Michael D. Black
> Senior Scientist
> Northrop Grumman Mission Systems
>
>
> ____
>
> From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org on behalf of Pavel Ivanov
> Sent: Thu 5/13/2010 6:40 AM
> To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
> Subject:
From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org on behalf of Pavel Ivanov
Sent: Thu 5/13/2010 6:40 AM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] multi processes,so many errores of SQLITE_BUSY and
SQLITE_MISUSE
> I assume you want the sqllite3_stmt to work -- so you need to l
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:07:50AM -0700, liubin liu scratched on the wall:
>
> I see many SQLITE_BUSY returned from sqlite3_finalize(). Are they memory leak
> because it don't succeed in finalizing the sqlite3_stmt pointer?
It sounds like you're using using sqlite3_prepare() rather than
gt; Northrop Grumman Mission Systems
>
>
>
>
> From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org on behalf of liubin liu
> Sent: Thu 5/13/2010 2:07 AM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] multi processes, so many errores of SQLITE_BUSY and
&g
-users-boun...@sqlite.org on behalf of liubin liu
Sent: Thu 5/13/2010 2:07 AM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] multi processes, so many errores of SQLITE_BUSY and
SQLITE_MISUSE
I see many SQLITE_BUSY returned from sqlite3_finalize(). Are they memory leak
because it don't succeed
Senior Scientist
>> Northrop Grumman Mission Systems
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org on behalf of liubin liu
>> Sent: Tue 5/11/2010 9:20 PM
>> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
>> Subject: Re: [sqlite
ers-boun...@sqlite.org on behalf of liubin liu
> Sent: Tue 5/11/2010 9:20 PM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] multi processes, so many errores of SQLITE_BUSY and
> SQLITE_MISUSE
>
>
>
>
> Thank you very much!
>
> It may be because my
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 06:23:46AM -0500, Black, Michael (IS) scratched on the
wall:
> Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong on this one...
> I think sqlite can work with multiple processes just doing read-onliy
> operations (like SELECT).
Yes.
> It's just the write operations
>
From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org on behalf of liubin liu
Sent: Tue 5/11/2010 9:20 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] multi processes, so many errores of SQLITE_BUSY and
SQLITE_MISUSE
Thank you very much!
It may be because my system's resource is limited. It's
is in sqlrun.c with looping and killing. Looks
> pretty squirrely to me. You're not waiting for the forks to finish so
> what is your logic here?
>
> Michael D. Black
> Senior Scientist
> Northrop Grumman Mission Systems
>
>
> ____________
>
finish so what is
your logic here?
Michael D. Black
Senior Scientist
Northrop Grumman Mission Systems
From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org on behalf of liubin liu
Sent: Tue 5/11/2010 4:57 AM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: [sqlite] multi processes,
Multi processes, getting so many errores of SQLITE_BUSY and SQLITE_MISUSE...
And the system performance is very bad because of the three processes of
insert/read/update database.
How to improve the sqlite3's operations?
_my codes___
22 matches
Mail list logo
