On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 17:30, Simon Slavin <slav...@bigfraud.org> wrote:
> > On 11 Oct 2011, at 4:01pm, Gal Waldman wrote: > > >> If you don't mind inconsistency due to changes not being included in the > >> same transaction, it may be that doing faster changes but leaving a tiny > gap > >> between each one will allow your other processes to access the database > >> without exceeding the busy-wait time. > > > > I guess the issue is data integrity vs Db logical scheme, I thought about > > the external table as a bypass, but than again I need to implement the DB > > scheme logic on the application level. > > How are you handling transactions ? Are all the changes involved in one > update from one probe made inside one transaction ? Does this involve > changing many rows ? > Single transaction for all probes. > > Simon. > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@sqlite.org > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > -- Waldman Gal Products Manager ------------------------------ Mobile +972 522 558885 Fax +972 3 6209277 Email ga...@tagvs.com Skype waldman_gal Site http://www.tagvs.com _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
