DragonK wrote:
On 2/7/07, Ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Try without the pragma and wrap the inserts with a begin transaction
and a
commit...
The performance will be almost as good as with the pragma, with the
added benefit of consistent data and no corruption in the event of a
crash
or power failure.
I know, but in my case, I can't use transactions due to the architecture of
the product.
Why not? Can't you just execute SQL?
DragonK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/7/07, Teg wrote:
>
> Hello ohadp,
>
> Well, my experience is, particularly when it's users using it and not
> a personal project, that corruption happens fairly frequently when you
> use this pragma. That's why I don't use it any more in my production
> code.
>
> Transactions are far safer and fast too.
>
> Indeed, transactions are safer.
But I wonder, why did you experienced corruption with this pragma? Was it
because of crashes of the OS or the application? Or are there other
factors
which can corrupt the data if not syncing ? As I understood from the
documentation, the only thing that can corrupt data when using this
pragma
are crashes and power failures.
--
...it's only a matter of time...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
