Hello, On May 27, 2008, at 9:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is this a limitation, or am I missing something? Creating tables dynamically is not very useful in general, so perhaps this is misguided, yes :) On the other hand, an alternative I found useful is to use SQLite's 'attach database' to simulate the equivalent of Oracle's partitioned table: http://download-uk.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10501_01/server.920/a96524/c12parti.htm In a nutshell, one attaches multiple databases with the same data structures. Upon insertion/update/delete, one chooses a given partition (aka attached database) to store a set of data [1][2][3]. Upon select [4], one loops over the partitions and aggregate the final results [5]. In practice, I have noticed two main benefits with such a setup: (1) Reduces database contention upon insertion/update/delete as now there are several physical database files instead of one (2) Speedup of query execution as now each data set represent just a fraction of the overall database size Not sure how generally useful such a schema is, but it works rather well for my specific usage pattern. Cheers, -- PA. http://alt.textdrive.com/nanoki/ [1] http://dev.alt.textdrive.com/browser/HTTP/Finder.dml#L16 [2] http://dev.alt.textdrive.com/browser/HTTP/Finder.dml#L23 [3] http://dev.alt.textdrive.com/browser/HTTP/Finder.dml#L28 [4] http://dev.alt.textdrive.com/browser/HTTP/Finder.dml#L94 [5] http://dev.alt.textdrive.com/browser/HTTP/Finder.dml#L126 _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
