here's a table:
i want to delete from the table all records with plID = 1, but ONLY those that
have a corresponding record where plID == 851090 and where that record's soID
matches the one where plID = 1
so the query should delete rows 8-12, but leave 1-2 intact (and also leave 3-7)
there
SELECT DISTINCT column FROM table WHERE column not NULL;
this is exactly what I needed, thanks!
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
here's a table:
i want to delete from the table all records with plID = 1, but ONLY those that
have a corresponding record where plID == 851090 and where that record's soID
matches the one where plID = 1
so the query should delete rows 8-12, but leave 1-2 intact (and also leave 3-7)
there
here's a table:
the list helpfully deletes enclosed pictures, even if they're wicked small..
here's the actual table:
http://karaoke.kjams.com/screenshots/table.png
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
you guys are flippin' gods ya know that right?
thanks!
On Jun 19, 2014, at 10:26 PM, Igor Tandetnik i...@tandetnik.org wrote:
On 6/20/2014 1:20 AM, David M. Cotter wrote:
i want to delete from the table all records with plID = 1, but ONLY those
that have a corresponding record where plID
, repeat above
then ask again, get nothing, and i'd be done
On Jun 17, 2014, at 10:54 PM, David M. Cotter d...@kjams.com wrote:
i have a table with a numeric column (not the key column)
i want to obtain from this table a list of unique numbers appearing in that
one column
some cells
i have a table with a numeric column (not the key column)
i want to obtain from this table a list of unique numbers appearing in that one
column
some cells in the column may have nothing, some may have duplicate numbers eg:
1
1
1
4
_
_
4
_
note that _ means no data. i want to get a
okay i realize my requirements were wrong, here's a better summary:
the plID (playlist ID) in the song table is different (the OLD id 33), the plID
in the playlist table is the new ID 35, so i have to test them separately. the
song ID's must match
the playlist table's index is the plID, so i
i have a song table S that has songID, playlistID, and stale (boolean)
as columns (among others)
i have a playlist table P that has playlistID and songID as columns
(among others)
for a particular playlistID X, i want to delete all rows from P who's
(P.playlistID == S.playlistID == X) and
ah! this was my answer! thanks!
On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:03 AM, Igor Tandetnik i...@tandetnik.org wrote:
On 11/10/2013 8:12 PM, David M. Cotter wrote:
what i did before SQL was to just tell the new song (which may have updated
/ corrected meta data) to have the old song ID (and tell the old
i've got say a music database
the unique song ID is the integer primary key, used to look up the song and
all it's data
sometimes an update of the meta data comes along, so i want to update to the
new list, but preserve the old song IDs (so playlists that refer to them still
link up)
what i
Did you read the page at the URL I gave ? It answers the question.
yes the page shows an extremely unhelpful comparison:
SELECT count(*) FROM enrondata1 WHERE content MATCH 'linux'; /* 0.03 seconds
*/
SELECT count(*) FROM enrondata2 WHERE content LIKE '%linux%'; /* 22.5 seconds
*/
they
iTunes has update search results as you type speed even when you have a
hundred thousand songs and you're searching on a partial string on all meta
data columns.
how on earth do they do that?
i'm under the impression it uses CoreData, which in turn uses SQLite under
the hood.
how
SELECT p.piIx FROM playlist p JOIN song s ON p.soID = s.soID WHERE p.plID =
99662 AND (s.name LIKE %love％ OR s.arts LIKE ％love％ OR s.pUSD LIKE
％love％ OR s.pbls LIKE ％love％ OR s.genr LIKE ％love％) ORDER BY s.pbls
ASC, s.name ASC, s.albm ASC, p.piIx ASC
Good grief, no that's going to get
iTunes has update search results as you type speed even when you have a
hundred thousand songs and you're searching on a partial string on all meta
data columns.
how on earth do they do that?
i'm under the impression it uses CoreData, which in turn uses SQLite under the
hood.
how can i make
If you don't need this behaviour because you're confident you'll never get a
clash, then you could accumulate your INSERTs in memory, then blast through
them when you would previously have just done the COMMIT.
i will never have a clash because i manage the primary keys myself.
is there an
or aborts do i then just
merge the store DB with the main DB, but this depends on the ability to run a
single merge command?
is there such a thing?
On Feb 6, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Simon Slavin wrote:
On 6 Feb 2011, at 5:42pm, David M. Cotter wrote:
If you don't need this behaviour because you're
i'm sure this topic has been beaten to death but i just really want to make
sure.
i'm using ONE database, and one handle to it on all threads
here's a theoretical timeline
--
1) thread 1
begin transaction
do bunches of stuff
2) thread 2
begin transaction
do bunches of stuff
Transactions are per-connection and have nothing to do
with threads. If you want different transactions in each thread you
need to make one connection for each thread. But those transactions
won't be able to execute simultaneously.
so if i open a separate connection on each thread
then each
a different behavior you need to use some other DBMS.
Pavel
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 5:48 PM, David M. Cotter m...@davecotter.com wrote:
Transactions are per-connection and have nothing to do
with threads. If you want different transactions in each thread you
need to make one connection
forgive my not understanding this but i'm trying to be extremely clear and i am
not sure from your answer whether you have understood my question.
In SQLite every write is in a transaction whether you declare one with BEGIN
or not. If you don't declare a transaction, SQLite invisibly
21 matches
Mail list logo
