Keith Medcalf wrote: > > I considered that as well, but it's not clear how much benefit you get > > over the autoincrement scheme: the PK-index is there either way, so > > that's not a slowdown. The split table approach also makes > > query-writing and indexing more complex, so at a minimum you'd probably > > want to make a view that runs a UNION ALL on the two tables. > > Whatever for? One table contains the data, the other contains the rowids from the first table that require updating. You would not be able to UNION (ALL or otherwise) the rows from the two tables -- they are entirely different.
He might want to write a query for that view which selects the rows in the first table which require no updating and unions that with another select which gets the ones in need of updating and also substitutes the computed values which would be made durable by the update. Cheers, -- Larry Brasfield _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
