On 1/16/15, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:58:25 -0700
> "Keith Medcalf" wrote:
>
>> > there's no way to hook two SELECTs together to make them see one
>> >database state. That's what JOIN is for. :-)
>>
>> Yes, it is a part of the SQL Standard isolation levels in excess of
>> t
On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:58:25 -0700
"Keith Medcalf" wrote:
> > there's no way to hook two SELECTs together to make them see one
> >database state. That's what JOIN is for. :-)
>
> Yes, it is a part of the SQL Standard isolation levels in excess of
> the default default of READ COMMITTED. Differ
On Friday, 9 January, 2015 16:43, James K. Lowden
said:
>On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 21:47:24 -0700 "Keith Medcalf" wrote:
>Along the same lines, since you mentioned it,
>> in an SQLite database you can do:
>> BEGIN
>> SELECT ...
>> SELECT ...
>> SELECT ...
>> SELECT ...
>> COMMIT
>> and the view
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 21:47:24 -0700
"Keith Medcalf" wrote:
> >As I said, your description (which I trust is accurate) is very
> >helpful to someone who wants to understand how SQLite will act on
> >the SQL provided to it. But it also protrays problematic choices
> >that stray from SQL's defined b
Thanks for all the sage observations. As a server with a connection pool, I'm
avoiding some of issues brought up. Every thread has their own connection
handle and when done, it goes back into the pool so no sharing. I spent some
hours reading everything I could find about this product and concurren
On Wednesday, 7 January, 2015 22:57, Kevin Benson
said:
>-- The OP wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Rick Kelly wrote:
>>*SNIP*
>> The database file is located in the same folder as the server. The
>server
>is
>> multi-threaded. I'm using library version 3.8.7.4
>> The database file is
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 January, 2015 20:01, James K. Lowden <
> jklow...@schemamania.org> said:
> >On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 21:41:02 -0700
> >"Keith Medcalf" wrote:
> >> On Friday, 2 January, 2015 16:26, James K. Lowden
> >> said:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, 2
On Wednesday, 7 January, 2015 20:01, James K. Lowden
said:
>On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 21:41:02 -0700
>"Keith Medcalf" wrote:
>> On Friday, 2 January, 2015 16:26, James K. Lowden
>> said:
>>
>> >On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 05:32:45 -0700 (MST) Rick Kelly
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> All SELECT type requests are wrapp
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 21:41:02 -0700
"Keith Medcalf" wrote:
> On Friday, 2 January, 2015 16:26, James K. Lowden
> said:
>
> >On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 05:32:45 -0700 (MST) Rick Kelly
> > wrote:
>
> >> All SELECT type requests are wrapped with BEGIN TRANSACTION/COMMIT
>
> >That shouldn't be necessary a
On 3 Jan 2015, at 4:41am, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> I do not believe that there is a way to specify "COMMIT BUT MAINTAIN THE
> SHARED LOCK", (that is, to commit the changes only and un-escalate the lock
> back to a shared lock) which would be required in order for the loop
> semantics posited by
On Friday, 2 January, 2015 16:26, James K. Lowden
said:
>On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 05:32:45 -0700 (MST) Rick Kelly wrote:
>> All SELECT type requests are wrapped with BEGIN TRANSACTION/COMMIT
>That shouldn't be necessary and afaik isn't necessary. SELECT does not
>modify the database. To "commi
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 3:25 PM, James K. Lowden
wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 05:32:45 -0700 (MST)
> Rick Kelly wrote:
>
> > All SELECT type requests are wrapped with BEGIN TRANSACTION/COMMIT
>
> That shouldn't be necessary and afaik isn't necessary. SELECT does not
> modify the database. To "c
On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 05:32:45 -0700 (MST)
Rick Kelly wrote:
> All SELECT type requests are wrapped with BEGIN TRANSACTION/COMMIT
That shouldn't be necessary and afaik isn't necessary. SELECT does not
modify the database. To "commit a select" is to apply the nonchanges.
A common misconceptio
Clients know nothing about the database, they just submit a request and get
results. The server is the only process accessing and using SQLite.
Rick Kelly
--
View this message in context:
http://sqlite.1065341.n5.nabble.com/Client-Server-Best-Practices-tp79728p79731.html
Sent from the SQLite m
On 25 Dec 2014, at 12:32pm, Rick Kelly wrote:
> If a request encounters %SQLITE_BUSY or %SQLITE_LOCKED, I'm retrying up to 5
> times with a 100ms sleep in between.
>
> Will this approach minimize %SQLITE_BUSY and %SQLITE_LOCKED situations and
> provide decent concurrency and long term stability
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Rick Kelly wrote:
> I'm using SQLite3 for the first time and am looking to see if those more
> experienced can look at my deployment and offer suggestions.
>
> I have a client/server application running on MS Windows communicating over
> TCP/IP supporting a few do
Hi,
Yes, The server and clients are in Network.
Best Regards,
Sreedhar.
-Original Message-
From: John Stanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 6:17 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Client/Server approach
You do not need a server to manage 5
: [sqlite] Client/Server approach
You do not need a server to manage 5 clients on the same machine, only if
they are on a network.
Sreedhar.a wrote:
Hi,
I am working in sqlite 3.3.6.
I want 5 clients to browse at the same time with good performance.
I enabled threadsafe and defined
same machine.
> In a network 5 clients and 1 server will be present.
>
>
> Regards,
> A.Sreedhar.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Stanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 6:17 PM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: Re: [sq
I am not using 5 clients from the same machine.
In a network 5 clients and 1 server will be present.
Regards,
A.Sreedhar.
-Original Message-
From: John Stanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 6:17 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Client
You do not need a server to manage 5 clients on the same machine, only
if they are on a network.
Sreedhar.a wrote:
Hi,
I am working in sqlite 3.3.6.
I want 5 clients to browse at the same time with good performance.
I enabled threadsafe and defined SQLITE_ENABLE_MEMORY_MANAGEMENT .
I think b
Hi,
I am working in sqlite 3.3.6.
I want 5 clients to browse at the same time with good performance.
I enabled threadsafe and defined SQLITE_ENABLE_MEMORY_MANAGEMENT .
I think by using test_server.c we can do 5 clients browsing with single
server.
Can any one please help me by providing some pa
Just another suggestion to the problem which I use my self.
I use a single SQLite database for each client. Hosting the database
collection on a bastion host as close to the client as I can get it.
Therefore no client/server connection used.
I then use a daemon which reads all the client SQL
Eugene Wee wrote:
Not at all (if I correctly understand what you're trying to say).
For example, there exists a SQLite extension in PHP (which comes
bundled by default in PHP5, but currently does not support SQLite3).
pecl, PDO extensions allows PHP to use SQLITE Version 3.X too :-)
http://it
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 11:52:30AM -0300, Mart?n Schamis wrote:
> Hi, Eugene and everybody.
>
> The problem I have is this, I?m implementing a web aplication that will
> require up to 300 users writing at
Then why are you even looking at SQLite? IMNSHO, unless you have some
compelling reasons ot
Martín Schamis said:
> Hello, I´ve seen inthe sqllite page that,"If you have many client
> programs accessing a common database over a network, you should consider
> using a client/server database engine instead of SQLite"
>
> 1 .- This means that I can´t use a php on the web and the users accedin
Martín Schamis a écrit :
> Hi, Eugene and everybody.
>
> The problem I have is this, I´m implementing a web aplication that will
> require up to 300 users writing at
> The same time to the database file simultaneously.
you mean 300 users connected simultaaneously, writing occasionaly to the
data
: Eugene Wee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: martes, 07 de junio de 2005 10:59
Para: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Asunto: Re: [sqlite] client/server
Hi,
Martín Schamis wrote:
> 1 .- This means that I can´t use a php on the web and the users
acceding
> to that page can`t modify the base ?
Not
Hi,
Martín Schamis wrote:
1 .- This means that I can´t use a php on the web and the users acceding
to that page can`t modify the base ?
Not at all (if I correctly understand what you're trying to say).
For example, there exists a SQLite extension in PHP (which comes bundled by
default in PHP5,
Le mar 09/11/2004 à 17:52, Gerhard Haering a écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 10:45:35AM -0500, Richard Boehme wrote:
> > Hi there. How well does SQLite do in a client/server environment
> > where the SQLite database is handling a batch of 100 inserts and the
> > same number of queries a every 0.5
Hello,
"Clay Dowling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
09/11/2004 02:39 AM
Please respond to sqlite-users
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Client/Server Environment
> Richard Boehme said:
> > Hi there. How well does SQL
Richard Boehme said:
> This is an extreme case -- records would usually be updated every minute
> or so. Usually there might be 10 computers trading information (about
> 100 records every few minutes), for example. I was extrpolating an
> extreme test case where the system is very heavily used.
>
This is an extreme case -- records would usually be updated every minute
or so. Usually there might be 10 computers trading information (about
100 records every few minutes), for example. I was extrpolating an
extreme test case where the system is very heavily used.
In such a situation, we woul
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 10:45:35AM -0500, Richard Boehme wrote:
> Hi there. How well does SQLite do in a client/server environment
> where the SQLite database is handling a batch of 100 inserts and the
> same number of queries a every 0.5 seconds? The inserts would be
> batched into a transaction.
Richard Boehme said:
> Hi there. How well does SQLite do in a client/server environment where
> the SQLite database is handling a batch of 100 inserts and the same
> number of queries a every 0.5 seconds? The inserts would be batched into
> a transaction. The queries would most likely not.
I'm no
35 matches
Mail list logo
