Roger Binns <rog...@rogerbinns.com> writes: > On 07/31/2010 07:28 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >> Possible use case: I want to send someone an SQLite database with my >> data, so that he can debug an application that's using the database >> (since it's having problems with the particular set of data that I'm >> using it with). However, I don't want him to be able to actually read >> the data. > > What part of the database is causing the problems? Obviously if it is the > data itself, then that pretty much requires the original data. For > performance issues you need the data to be representative, and also any > relations need to be maintained.
In the case that I had just now, there is a database with file system metadata (file and directory names, attributes, tree structure). Something is wrong with the metadata, so I want to run the equivalent of an fsck on the database. However, the user that has the problem would rather not send me a database complete list of the fields that he has stored. Since in this case the file names are just opaque labels without any relations or structure, hashing them all was a pretty good solution. Since I had to write an extra program for this simple operation, I was wondering why there isn't a hash function build into SQLite. > On the other hand if you just want various actual > encryption/obfuscation/hash functions then SQLite provides easy ways of > adding those yourself. You mean with sqlite_create_function()? Best, -Nikolaus -- »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
