James Gregurich wrote: >> You will have to open the memory database and attach the db file since >> SQLite can't attach to a memory database. > > is this information wrong? > http://www.blitzbasic.com/Community/posts.php?topic=60981 >
No it's not. I was mistaken. SQLite can attach a memory database to an open connection, even another memory database. Each such memory database is independent, and there is no way to use an existing memory database in an attach command. Attaching to a memory database always creates a new empty in memory database. To share an attached database the threads must be able to name it, and this is only possible with a file database. > yes. the nature of the application is such that the data is loaded > from a proprietary file format, processed, and presented to the user. > There is no need to store the data back on disk. One of the best uses of SQlite is as an application's file format. See http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=WhenToUseSqlite for more info. Perhaps you can replace the proprietary file format with a permanent SQLite database file (and then again maybe not). > I'm interested in a flexible, convenient, in-memory datastore. I > thought it was going to work but was stopped dead in my tracks when I > realized I couldn't open multiple connections on an in-memory db. You could implement a server thread that accesses a single memory database which accepts commands from, and passes the results back to, your other threads as John suggested. You will have to provide some form of resource management for the shared resource, whether it is a shared memory database, file, or something else. HTH Dennis Cote _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
