> After more poking, it appears that rowids might not be changed by a vacuum if > I have an index on the table. Is this true? If so, is it something I can rely > on going forward?
No, it's not true. The only way to keep your rowids intact is to declare an INTEGER PRIMARY KEY alias for it. And you better never reference "rowid" name in your application or your database schema. Pavel On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Dave Hayden <d...@panic.com> wrote: > When the VACUUM feature was added I took a look at using it to keep database > file sizes down, but discovered that it changed rowids and messed up my > references between tables (or what I gather the database people call "foreign > keys"). I'm playing around with this again and it looks like rowids aren't > affected if I have an INTEGER PRIMARY KEY column, but I don't want to rebuild > the existing tables if I don't have to. > > After more poking, it appears that rowids might not be changed by a vacuum if > I have an index on the table. Is this true? If so, is it something I can rely > on going forward? > > Thanks! > -Dave > > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@sqlite.org > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
