At 17:22 06/05/2004, D. Richard Hipp wrote:
Thomas, Basil wrote:
I am no technical expert but...could not page locking at least be
implemented
by the pager module to increase concurrency(very naive...but better
than file
locking).
Page-level locking will not help. For one thing, we cannot
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Puneet Kishor wrote:
Things that SQLite sucks at (if you pardon the expression) compared to
Access and FMPro -- ALTERing tables is a royal pain in the behind. I am
constantly in need of ALTERing the tables and queries (views) as I am
developing the application, and to do this
Christian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Puneet Kishor wrote:
Things that SQLite sucks at (if you pardon the expression) compared to
Access and FMPro -- ALTERing tables is a royal pain in the behind. I am
constantly in need of ALTERing the tables and queries (views) as I am
developing the
On Thu, 6 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to use SQLite on a web server or .net remoting and
multi-user/threads may become an issue
as locking is based at the finest granularity of file locking instead of
table/page/row locking. Will this issue be resolved from 3.x onwards so that
at least be
implemented by the pager module to increase concurrency(very naive...but
better than file locking).
-Original Message-
From: Christian Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 9:38 AM
To: Thomas, Basil
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sqlite] vers 3.0
Christian Smith wrote:
[U]se the right tool for the job. If you require concurrent
readers/writer(s), then you may be better off using a full blown
client/server database, especially in a distributed environment. SQLite is
designed to be embedded, don't just use it because you can.
[U]se the right tool for the job. If you require concurrent
readers/writer(s), then you may be better off using a full blown
client/server database, especially in a distributed
environment. SQLite is
designed to be embedded, don't just use it because you can.
Concurrency is not
Thomas, Basil wrote:
I am no technical expert but...could not page locking at least be implemented
by the pager module to increase concurrency(very naive...but better than file
locking).
Page-level locking will not help. For one thing, we cannot do both page-level
locking and reader/writer
I'm testing sqlite on a network (Windows 2003 Server) share and with 5 users. I've
created a server program which is ran from the same directory as the shared
database. The program that the 5 users have, will read only from the sqlite database
in that directory. Whenever they want to add a
?p=BlueSky
Christian
-Original Message-
From: Christian Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 9:38 AM
To: Thomas, Basil
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sqlite] vers 3.0 concurrency issues
On Thu, 6 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to use SQLite
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:54:24AM -0400, D. Richard Hipp wrote:
Concurrency is not nearly as much an issue in reality
as it is in many peoples imagination. Concurrency
probably is not an issue for a website. If concurrency
really is an issue, you need a client/server database.
While that
as regards increased concurrency???
-Original Message-
From: D. Richard Hipp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 12:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sqlite] vers 3.0 concurrency issues
Thomas, Basil wrote:
I am no technical expert but...could not page locking
2004 17:53
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sqlite] vers 3.0 concurrency issues
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:54:24AM -0400, D. Richard Hipp wrote:
Concurrency is not nearly as much an issue in reality
as it is in many peoples imagination. Concurrency
probably is not an issue for a website
requested...such as supporting more users!!!
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Piskorski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 12:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sqlite] vers 3.0 concurrency issues
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:54:24AM -0400, D. Richard Hipp wrote
...such as supporting more users!!!
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Piskorski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 12:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sqlite] vers 3.0 concurrency issues
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:54:24AM -0400, D. Richard Hipp wrote:
Concurrency is not nearly
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 06:24:10PM +0100, Steve O'Hara wrote:
However, I'm wondering why we're comparing SQLite with kernel based RDBMS
like Oracle etc, and not with it's more closely related cousins such as
Access ?
In my case, because I am very familiar with Oracle, somewhat less so
with
In the spirit of discussion --
On May 6, 2004, at 1:08 PM, Andrew Piskorski wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 06:24:10PM +0100, Steve O'Hara wrote:
However, I'm wondering why we're comparing SQLite with kernel based
RDBMS
like Oracle etc, and not with it's more closely related cousins such
as
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:21:28PM -0500, Puneet Kishor wrote:
they are as real a database as one wants them to be. Sure, they don't
support ACID compliance, but I am not sure if they are created by
Ugh, that particular argument is one I should not have started. My
apologies to all, and
On May 6, 2004, at 2:06 PM, Andrew Piskorski wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:21:28PM -0500, Puneet Kishor wrote:
they are as real a database as one wants them to be. Sure, they don't
support ACID compliance, but I am not sure if they are created by
Ugh, that particular argument is one I should
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:21:28PM -0500, Puneet Kishor wrote:
Frankly, I am not sure if there is anything exciting left in relational
databases to discover or create... most has been created and
well-tested over the past 3 decades. What is left is making a tool
No way, that is not true!
...have a clue. I'm not saying it's the best
or fastest but it must have something going for it...
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Puneet Kishor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 06 May 2004 18:59
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sqlite] vers 3.0 concurrency
21 matches
Mail list logo
