Re: [sqlite] [EXTERNAL] Is mutliple-execute-one-commit slower than multiple single-execute-single-commit?

[Hick Gunter]

If you could provide more information then maybe someone can suggest a reason 
or even a solution for the effect you are seeing. Some of the following may be 
helpful.

What schema are you using?
Which journal mode is your database running in?
What kind of statements are executed?
How are you controlling transactions?
How are you measuring speed?
Can you replicate the problem by running the statements in the sqlite shell?

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] Im 
Auftrag von Peng Yu
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. Januar 2020 07:42
An: SQLite mailing list 
Betreff: [EXTERNAL] [sqlite] Is mutliple-execute-one-commit slower than 
multiple single-execute-single-commit?

Hi,

I have two python programs using sqlite3. They function the same, except the 
following.

In the first, execute() is called in batches and then commit() is called 
following them. In the second, commit() is called after each execute(). It 
seems that the second case is faster (I can not separate my code in a 
self-contained test case to show here).

This is counterintuitive. I thought the first should be faster.

Is it expected that the 2nd case should be slightly faster?

--
Regards,
Peng
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users


___
 Gunter Hick | Software Engineer | Scientific Games International GmbH | 
Klitschgasse 2-4, A-1130 Vienna | FN 157284 a, HG Wien, DVR: 0430013 | (O) +43 
1 80100 - 0

May be privileged. May be confidential. Please delete if not the addressee.
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

[sqlite] Is mutliple-execute-one-commit slower than multiple single-execute-single-commit?

[Peng Yu]

Hi,

I have two python programs using sqlite3. They function the same,
except the following.

In the first, execute() is called in batches and then commit() is
called following them. In the second, commit() is called after each
execute(). It seems that the second case is faster (I can not separate
my code in a self-contained test case to show here).

This is counterintuitive. I thought the first should be faster.

Is it expected that the 2nd case should be slightly faster?

-- 
Regards,
Peng
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Paul van Helden]

"In-process" describes it best for me.



On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:16 AM Darren Duncan 
wrote:

> The concepts I like the best so far are "in-process" or "integrated" or
> something library-themed. -- Darren Duncan
>
> On 2020-01-27 2:18 p.m., Richard Hipp wrote:
> > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> > RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> > seems to mean "without a server".
> >
> > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
> > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
> > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
> > "SQLite is serverless".
> >
> > How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
> > "serverless" to mean "without a server"?
> >
> > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
> > "serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
> > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
> > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.
> >
> > When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
> > function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
> > application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
> > are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
> > function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
> > function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
> > own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
> > itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.
> >
> > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
> > without confusing people?
> >
> > "no-server"?
> > "sans-server"?
> > "stackless"?
> > "non-client/server"?
> ___
> sqlite-users mailing list
> sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
>
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Darren Duncan]

The concepts I like the best so far are "in-process" or "integrated" or 
something library-themed. -- Darren Duncan


On 2020-01-27 2:18 p.m., Richard Hipp wrote:

For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
seems to mean "without a server".

But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
"serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
"SQLite is serverless".

How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
"serverless" to mean "without a server"?

Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
"serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.

When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.

So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
without confusing people?

"no-server"?
"sans-server"?
"stackless"?
"non-client/server"?

___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Deon Brewis]

> "What is the word for that programming methodology that existed since the 
> beginning when there were no threads and everything was single-task?"

Real Mode.

- Deon

> On Jan 28, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Roman Fleysher  
> wrote:
> 
> What is the word for that programming methodology that existed since the 
> beginning when there were no threads and everything was single-task?
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] Is sqlite3 smart enough to remove redundant command?

[Igor Tandetnik]

On 1/29/2020 12:04 AM, Peng Yu wrote:

Suppose that I have the following command, which writes two entries
with the same key. So the 1st entry will be overwritten by the 2nd
entry. Therefore, there is no need to write the 1st entry. Is sqlite3
smart enough to not to write the 1st entry? Or it will write both the
1st entry and the 2nd entry? Thanks.

conn=sqlite3.connect("my.db")
c=conn.cursor()
c.execute('''
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS sqlar(
name TEXT PRIMARY KEY
, mode INT
, mtime INT
, sz INT
, data BLOB)
''')
c.execute('REPLACE INTO sqlar VALUES(?, ?, ?, ?, ?)', ["a", 0, 0, 1, "1"])
c.execute('REPLACE INTO sqlar VALUES(?, ?, ?, ?, ?)', ["a", 0, 0, 1, "2"])
conn.commit()


Do you expect the first c.execute() call to look into the future and somehow 
know that the second c.execute() call is coming next?
--
Igor Tandetnik


___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

[sqlite] Is sqlite3 smart enough to remove redundant command?

[Peng Yu]

Suppose that I have the following command, which writes two entries
with the same key. So the 1st entry will be overwritten by the 2nd
entry. Therefore, there is no need to write the 1st entry. Is sqlite3
smart enough to not to write the 1st entry? Or it will write both the
1st entry and the 2nd entry? Thanks.

conn=sqlite3.connect("my.db")
c=conn.cursor()
c.execute('''
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS sqlar(
name TEXT PRIMARY KEY
, mode INT
, mtime INT
, sz INT
, data BLOB)
''')
c.execute('REPLACE INTO sqlar VALUES(?, ?, ?, ?, ?)', ["a", 0, 0, 1, "1"])
c.execute('REPLACE INTO sqlar VALUES(?, ?, ?, ?, ?)', ["a", 0, 0, 1, "2"])
conn.commit()

-- 
Regards,
Peng
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

[sqlite] IO Short Read Error when inserting a TEXT column

[rgarnett]

HiI am using sqLite3 on an embedded system (STM32H743VI) using, freeRTOS,
fatFS and an SD Card using the HAL Drivers and the SDMMC1 interface.The
database works fine with doubles, integers and chars, but as soon as I
attempt to insert a record with a bound text field the step function fails
with an IO Error Short Read.The VFS I am using I developed myself from the
demo on the sqLite website.  I suspect there may be problems with this code
as it was built with very little knowledge of the internals of sqLite.I
create the databases using sqLite Studio to avoid having to write code to
produce the data bases using the embedded system. I copy the databases with
no data onto the SD Card.The insert SQL string is const char
*insertIndexRecord  = "INSERT INTO tblMetaData VALUES (?1, ?2, ?3, ?4, ?5,
?6)";   The table has the automatic rowid field, and was created with the
following SQL statement:PRAGMA foreign_keys = 0;CREATE TABLE
sqlitestudio_temp_table AS SELECT * 
FROM tblMetaData;DROP TABLE tblMetaData;CREATE TABLE tblMetaData (   
dbFilename TEXTUNIQUE,startJD_UTCDOUBLE  NOT NULL   
   
UNIQUE,endJD_UTC  DOUBLE  UNIQUE   NOT NULL,   
numRecords INTEGER NOT NULL,IndexRecJD_UTC DOUBLE,recNum
INTEGER PRIMARY KEY ASC AUTOINCREMENT   NOT
NULL);INSERT INTO tblMetaData (dbFilename,  
 
startJD_UTC,endJD_UTC,   
numRecords,IndexRecJD_UTC,  
 
recNum)SELECT dbFilename,   
   
startJD_UTC,   endJD_UTC,   
   
numRecords,   IndexRecJD_UTC,   
   
recNum  FROM sqlitestudio_temp_table;DROP TABLE
sqlitestudio_temp_table;CREATE UNIQUE INDEX endJD ON tblMetaData (   
startJD_UTC ASC);CREATE UNIQUE INDEX "" ON tblMetaData (startJD_UTC
ASC);PRAGMA foreign_keys = 1;I thought that maybe the problem was my bind
statement not passing the text correctly, but I traced through the bind
function and it seemed to be OK.I suspect my VFS is the problem.  I am using
memsys5 with about 421k allocated for sqLite.  I am not running out of
memory.  I have two separate databases, one for the metaData and one for the
actual data. I only have one of them open at a time.Could anyone assist
please.I have attached the relevant files in a zip.Best regardsRob
sqLiteInsertTextProblem_001.zip

  



--
Sent from: http://sqlite.1065341.n5.nabble.com/
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] Bug report: Potential thread safety issues in sqlite3_initialize

[Oystein Eftevaag]

As I understand it, the barrier in that patch ensures that for whichever
thread executes the if(!sqlite3GlobalConfig.mutex.xMutexAlloc codepath)
{...}, the write to pTo->xMutexAlloc will be stored after the rest of the
xMutex* field writes. But there's nothing preventing another thread
*loading* them out of order; e.g. loading an uninitialized
sqlite3GlobalConfig.mutex.xMutexInit into a register prior to loading a now
initialized sqlite3GlobalConfig.mutex.xMutexAlloc (hence skipping the if()
block  in sqlite3MutexInit()), which could effectively result in a
sqlite3MutexInit() call with sqlite3GlobalConfig.mutex.xMutexInit
still being null after (for some number of cycles).

https://gist.github.com/vinterstum/ff4bc1ea715cc1d4c5da45864c9de4af should
help I think.

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 4:57 PM Richard Hipp  wrote:

> On 1/28/20, Oystein Eftevaag  wrote:
> > in sqlite3MutexInit() sqlite3GlobalConfig.mutex.xMutexAlloc
> > can be read as being set on a core, while the rest of the initialization
> > done in sqlite3MutexInit() still is being read as unset.
>
> Doesn't the memory barrier at
> https://www.sqlite.org/src/artifact/bae36f8af32c22ad?ln=247 prevent
> that?  Do you have a suggested patch to make it work?
>
>
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> d...@sqlite.org
>
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] Bug report: Potential thread safety issues in sqlite3_initialize

[Richard Hipp]

On 1/28/20, Oystein Eftevaag  wrote:
> in sqlite3MutexInit() sqlite3GlobalConfig.mutex.xMutexAlloc
> can be read as being set on a core, while the rest of the initialization
> done in sqlite3MutexInit() still is being read as unset.

Doesn't the memory barrier at
https://www.sqlite.org/src/artifact/bae36f8af32c22ad?ln=247 prevent
that?  Do you have a suggested patch to make it work?


-- 
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

[sqlite] Bug report: Potential thread safety issues in sqlite3_initialize

[Oystein Eftevaag]

Hi folks,

Data races in sqlite3_initialize was previously reported in
https://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org/msg94225.html
and
a fix landed, however while investigating internal TSan reports of this, as
far as we can tell the issue is still present (on non-x86 platforms with
less memory ordering guarantees) as mentioned previously in
https://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org/msg94225.html
.

Specifically, in sqlite3MutexInit() sqlite3GlobalConfig.mutex.xMutexAlloc
can be read as being set on a core, while the rest of the initialization
done in sqlite3MutexInit() still is being read as unset. The same is true
for sqlite3GlobalConfig.isInit within sqlite3_initialize(); a core calling
the function concurrently with another, could see
sqlite3GlobalConfig.isInit as set while the rest of the init work done is
still seen as unset. This is due to the current memory barriers ordering
the writes, but there's no barriers ensuring that other cores haven't done
the loads out of order.

Thanks,
Oystein
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Simon Slavin]

On 28 Jan 2020, at 6:05pm, Roman Fleysher  
wrote:

> I would like to ask, why is it so important to indicate that SQLite, in 
> reference to threads or client/server,  " does not work that way". I think 
> this might help to find the words to describe it. 

What a great point.

As a (retired) computer admin, the point about server-based systems that most 
put me off was the admin.  You have to install server software.  Configure it.  
Decide what privs it should have.  Back up its software and configuration 
files.  Back up its data files.  Update it when new releases come out.  Deal 
with problems when OS updates turn out to be incompatible with the server 
software.

So from my point of view one very encouraging way to say "serverless" is "zero 
administration".
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Roman Fleysher]

Dear Richard and SQLiters,

I would like to ask, why is it so important to indicate that SQLite, in 
reference to threads or client/server,  " does not work that way". I think this 
might help to find the words to describe it. Is it because some embedded 
systems do not support threads? Is it because some systems are inherently 
single-task and thus a separate server process can not run? It seems to me that 
server-free or daemon-free do not transmit this. Also adding "-free" or "less" 
indicates something that the object is not. More precisely would be to indicate 
what the object is. What is the word for that programming methodology that 
existed since the beginning when there were no threads and everything was 
single-task?

Roman

From: sqlite-users  on behalf of 
Richard Hipp 
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 6:18 AM
To: SQLite mailing list 
Cc: Rowan Worth 
Subject: Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

CAUTION: This email comes from an external source; the attachments and/or links 
may compromise our secure environment. Do not open or click on suspicious 
emails. Please click on the “Phish Alert” button on the top right of the 
Outlook dashboard to report any suspicious emails.

On 1/28/20, Howard Chu  wrote:
>
> Wait, really? AFAICS embedded means in-process, no IPC required to operate.
>

Things like MySQL-embedded and H2 run a "server" as a thread instead
of as a separate process.  Clients then use Inter-Thread Communication
rather than Inter-Process Communication to send their queries to, and
get their results from, the database thread.  So this is really the
same thing as a server using IPC except that the server runs in the
same address space as the client.  The point of using the term
"serverless" is to indicate that SQLite does not work that way.

--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailinglists.sqlite.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsqlite-usersdata=02%7C01%7Croman.fleysher%40einsteinmed.org%7C9d048c5952ba4b25c61f08d7a3e3dc39%7C9c01f0fd65e040c089a82dfd51e62025%7C0%7C0%7C637158071362442872sdata=mC%2F9%2Bc%2Bcn84%2Fvn66c8pTVksPDtzMGhRS5wOwU%2FrQe7w%3Dreserved=0
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Adolfo J . Millan]

My 2ct:

In-stack callable RDBMS.

--
A. J. Millan

>  Mensaje original 
> De: Richard Hipp Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:20:25 -0800
>
>For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
>to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
>RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
>seems to mean "without a server".Howard Chu 
> ...
>

___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Jose Isaias Cabrera]

Warren Young, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 02:27 PM, wrote...
>
> On Jan 28, 2020, at 9:25 AM, Richard Hipp  wrote:
> >
> > On 1/28/20, Jan Danielsson  wrote:
> >> On 2020-01-28 00:19, Richard Hipp wrote:
> >>> daemon-less?
> >>
> >> This is my favorite, the only problem is that it is culturally more a
> >> Unix-y term.
> >
> > Since suggesting daemon-less, someone else (I'll have to research who,
> > exactly) suggested "server-free", which I think I like more.
>
> A, that’s too bad, because I just thought up a new tagline for you:
> “SQLite: exorcise your database daemons!”

Or

SQLite: No daemons in this database. :-)


___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Warren Young]

On Jan 28, 2020, at 9:25 AM, Richard Hipp  wrote:
> 
> On 1/28/20, Jan Danielsson  wrote:
>> On 2020-01-28 00:19, Richard Hipp wrote:
>>> daemon-less?
>> 
>>   This is my favorite, the only problem is that it is culturally more a
>> Unix-y term.
> 
> Since suggesting daemon-less, someone else (I'll have to research who,
> exactly) suggested "server-free", which I think I like more.

A, that’s too bad, because I just thought up a new tagline for you: 
“SQLite: exorcise your database daemons!”
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Deon Brewis]

BYOT -> Bring Your Own Thread

Put another way: SQLITE is a BYOT Library.

- Deon

-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users  On Behalf Of 
Richard Hipp
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 2:19 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database 
Subject: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way to 
distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of RDBMSes.  
"Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it seems to mean "without 
a server".

But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that means 
"managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many readers have 
internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for "serverless" and are hence 
confused when they see my claim that "SQLite is serverless".

How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of "serverless" 
to mean "without a server"?

Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for 
"serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be running a 
server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most embedded RDBMSes other 
than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.

When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a function, that 
function performs some task on behalf of the application, then the function 
returns, *and that is all*.  No threads are left over, running in the 
background to do housekeeping.  The function does send messages to some other 
thread or process.  The function does not have an event loop.  The function 
does not have its own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the 
work itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.

So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
without confusing people?

"no-server"?
"sans-server"?
"stackless"?
"non-client/server"?


--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Deon Brewis]

This is a very important design distinction, not just implementation detail, If 
you know and internalize up front that SQLITE will run only on the thread you 
give it, you can architect your application better from the beginning and not 
e.g. go down one path initially and wonder how the get async behavior later.

I work on an old codebase where someone made some bad architectural decisions 
up front based on their misunderstanding of the SQLite execution model. It's 
virtually impossible to undo now without rewriting the app.

- Deon

-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users  On Behalf Of 
Jens Alfke
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:32 AM
To: SQLite mailing list 
Cc: Rowan Worth 
Subject: Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"



> On Jan 28, 2020, at 3:18 AM, Richard Hipp  wrote:
> 
> Things like MySQL-embedded and H2 run a "server" as a thread instead 
> of as a separate process.  ...  So this is really the same thing as a 
> server using IPC except that the server runs in the same address space 
> as the client.

I see that as a mere implementation detail, since it doesn't affect the way the 
developer configures or uses the system. Running an engine on a background 
thread(s) is an increasingly common technique as CPUs become more concurrent, 
especially in mobile apps where it's forbidden to 'jank' up the GUI by blocking 
the main thread.

For example, on iOS and macOS the HTTP client library (NSURLSession) and the 2d 
graphics compositing engine (CoreAnimation) do all their heavy lifting on 
background threads, but I wouldn't think of calling either of them server-based.

—Jens
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Carl Edquist]

The first thing that came to mind was "client-only", though that made me 
think of an old saying about lawyers,

He who represents himself has a fool for a client.


... Otherwise "server-free" has a very nice ring to it.

Carl

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Graham Holden wrote:

> Tuesday, January 28, 2020, 4:25:49 PM, Richard Hipp  wrote:
>
>> Since suggesting daemon-less, someone else (I'll have to research who,
>> exactly) suggested "server-free", which I think I like more.
>
> What? A free server with every copy of SQLite?
> That sounds like a good deal :-)
>
> Graham
>
>
> ___
> sqlite-users mailing list
> sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] sqlite-3.31.0 segfaults on fuzzcheck on s390x architectures

[Brüns , Stefan]

On Dienstag, 28. Januar 2020 18:26:05 CET Brüns, Stefan wrote:
> On Dienstag, 28. Januar 2020 16:16:01 CET Richard Hipp wrote:
> > On 1/27/20, Ondrej Dubaj  wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I came across a problem during mate test, where fuzzcheck ends with
> > > segfault.
> > > The problem appears to be only on [s390x]. Other architectures are
> > > working fine.
> > 
> > Fixed by check-in https://www.sqlite.org/src/info/04885763c4cd00cb
> > 
> > Thanks for the temporary SSH login!
> 
> We were seeing the problem also on other ppc64BE:
> 
> ppc64 (big endian):
> fuzzdata1.db: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%./fuzzcheck
> /home/abuild/rpmbuild/ BUILD/sqlite-src-3310100/test/fuzzdata1.db
> (sqlid=7726,dbid=1): segfault
> 
> The issue is cured with the fix, but we still see 3 failing tests with fts4/
> fts5:
> 
> ! fts5matchinfo-15.1 expected: [X'0200']
> ! fts5matchinfo-15.1 got:  [X'0002']
> ! fts5matchinfo-15.2 expected: [X'0200']
> ! fts5matchinfo-15.2 got:  [X'0002']
> ! fts4aa-6.10 expected:
> [X'02000E000E000100010001000100'
> ] ! fts4aa-6.10 got:
> [X'0002000E000E0001000100010001'
> ]

Seems to be an endianess problem, all three affected archs are big endian 
(ppc32, ppc64be, s390x):

> ! fts4aa-6.10 expected:
> [X'0200   0E00 0E00 0100 0100 0100 
0100'
> ] ! fts4aa-6.10 got:
> [X'0002   000E 000E 0001 0001 0001 
0001'
> ]

This is 3.31.1, btw.

Kind regards, Stefan
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Jens Alfke]

> On Jan 28, 2020, at 3:18 AM, Richard Hipp  wrote:
> 
> Things like MySQL-embedded and H2 run a "server" as a thread instead
> of as a separate process.  ...  So this is really the
> same thing as a server using IPC except that the server runs in the
> same address space as the client. 

I see that as a mere implementation detail, since it doesn't affect the way the 
developer configures or uses the system. Running an engine on a background 
thread(s) is an increasingly common technique as CPUs become more concurrent, 
especially in mobile apps where it's forbidden to 'jank' up the GUI by blocking 
the main thread.

For example, on iOS and macOS the HTTP client library (NSURLSession) and the 2d 
graphics compositing engine (CoreAnimation) do all their heavy lifting on 
background threads, but I wouldn't think of calling either of them server-based.

—Jens
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] sqlite-3.31.0 segfaults on fuzzcheck on s390x architectures

[Brüns , Stefan]

On Dienstag, 28. Januar 2020 16:16:01 CET Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 1/27/20, Ondrej Dubaj  wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I came across a problem during mate test, where fuzzcheck ends with
> > segfault.
> > The problem appears to be only on [s390x]. Other architectures are
> > working fine.
> 
> Fixed by check-in https://www.sqlite.org/src/info/04885763c4cd00cb
> 
> Thanks for the temporary SSH login!

We were seeing the problem also on other ppc64BE:

ppc64 (big endian):
fuzzdata1.db: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%./fuzzcheck /home/abuild/rpmbuild/
BUILD/sqlite-src-3310100/test/fuzzdata1.db (sqlid=7726,dbid=1): segfault

The issue is cured with the fix, but we still see 3 failing tests with fts4/
fts5:

! fts5matchinfo-15.1 expected: [X'0200']
! fts5matchinfo-15.1 got:  [X'0002']
! fts5matchinfo-15.2 expected: [X'0200']
! fts5matchinfo-15.2 got:  [X'0002']
! fts4aa-6.10 expected: 
[X'02000E000E000100010001000100']
! fts4aa-6.10 got:  
[X'0002000E000E0001000100010001']

SQLite 2020-01-27 19:55:54 
3bfa9cc97da10598521b342961df8f5f68c7388fa117345eeb516eaa837balt1
3 errors out of 294433 tests on obs-power8-05 Linux 64-bit big-endian
!Failures on these tests: fts5matchinfo-15.1 fts5matchinfo-15.2 fts4aa-6.10

SQLite 2020-01-27 19:55:54 
3bfa9cc97da10598521b342961df8f5f68c7388fa117345eeb516eaa837balt1
3 errors out of 294121 tests on obs-power8-05 Linux 32-bit big-endian
!Failures on these tests: fts5matchinfo-15.1 fts5matchinfo-15.2 fts4aa-6.10

SQLite 2020-01-27 19:55:54 
3bfa9cc97da10598521b342961df8f5f68c7388fa117345eeb516eaa837balt1
3 errors out of 294433 tests on s390zp23 Linux 64-bit big-endian
!Failures on these tests: fts5matchinfo-15.1 fts5matchinfo-15.2 fts4aa-6.10


On armv7l, there is another failure in the fuzztests, with and without the 
patch:
sessionfuzz-data1.db: sessionfuzz: ./sqlite3.c:57249: pager_open_journal: 
Assertion `rc!=SQLITE_OK || isOpen(pPager->jfd)' failed.


Kind regards,

Stefan
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Graham Holden]

Tuesday, January 28, 2020, 4:25:49 PM, Richard Hipp  wrote:

> Since suggesting daemon-less, someone else (I'll have to research who,
> exactly) suggested "server-free", which I think I like more.

What? A free server with every copy of SQLite?
That sounds like a good deal :-)

Graham


___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Richard Hipp]

On 1/28/20, Jan Danielsson  wrote:
> On 2020-01-28 00:19, Richard Hipp wrote:
>> daemon-less?
>
>This is my favorite, the only problem is that it is culturally more a
> Unix-y term.

Since suggesting daemon-less, someone else (I'll have to research who,
exactly) suggested "server-free", which I think I like more.

-- 
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Jan Danielsson]

On 2020-01-28 00:19, Richard Hipp wrote:
> daemon-less?

   This is my favorite, the only problem is that it is culturally more a
Unix-y term.

   But there are plenty of other good suggestions from this thread.

   - embedded
   - self-contained
   - in-process
   - integrated
   - connectionless

   Also take into consideration, to quote Warren Young: ``Keep using the
term.  We were here first.''

-- 
Kind Regards,
Jan
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] sqlite-3.31.0 segfaults on fuzzcheck on s390x architectures

[Richard Hipp]

On 1/27/20, Ondrej Dubaj  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I came across a problem during mate test, where fuzzcheck ends with
> segfault.
> The problem appears to be only on [s390x]. Other architectures are
> working fine.

Fixed by check-in https://www.sqlite.org/src/info/04885763c4cd00cb

Thanks for the temporary SSH login!

-- 
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[David Jones]

I think of it as direct access, though I could see people confusing that with 
Windows Server DirectAccess.

___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Amit Chaudhuri]

I like the slightly opaque "compact".
A

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 13:31, Donald Shepherd  wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 12:26 am, Jose Isaias Cabrera 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > R Smith, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 06:39 AM, wrote...
> > >
> > > I do not have a great suggestion to add, but to observe that the best
> > > suggestions I think are: NOT changing, (or if we have to) "Server-Free"
> > > or "Localized".
> >
> > I agree with these, but localize is another buzz word for translation.
>
>
> Internationalisation/translation is my first thought when I hear
> localisation/localised, a buzzword that must be at least 15 years old given
> when I first encountered it used like that.
>
> Regards,
> Donald Shepherd.
>
> >
> ___
> sqlite-users mailing list
> sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Donald Shepherd]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 12:26 am, Jose Isaias Cabrera 
wrote:

>
> R Smith, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 06:39 AM, wrote...
> >
> > I do not have a great suggestion to add, but to observe that the best
> > suggestions I think are: NOT changing, (or if we have to) "Server-Free"
> > or "Localized".
>
> I agree with these, but localize is another buzz word for translation.


Internationalisation/translation is my first thought when I hear
localisation/localised, a buzzword that must be at least 15 years old given
when I first encountered it used like that.

Regards,
Donald Shepherd.

>
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Jose Isaias Cabrera]

R Smith, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 06:39 AM, wrote...
>
> I do not have a great suggestion to add, but to observe that the best
> suggestions I think are: NOT changing, (or if we have to) "Server-Free"
> or "Localized".

I agree with these, but localize is another buzz word for translation.

___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Jose Isaias Cabrera]

Warren Young, on Monday, January 27, 2020 07:36 PM, wrote...
>
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Richard Hipp  wrote:
> >
> > "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me.”
>
> “Serverless” it a screwy buzzword anyway, because of course there’s
> still a server under its new meaning.
>
> My vote?  Keep using the term.  We were here first.

I agree.  It's an SQL engine without a server need, so it's SQL serverless.  Or 
"server needn't". or

Server? No.
SQL? Yes
Easy? Yes
Fast? Yes
Multi-platform? Yes
Choose any five.

> This is an ancient problem. It is why is any serious dictionary the count
> of definitions considerably exceeds the count of headwords. These new kids?
> “serverless, sense 2.”\

I actually don't believe is ancient.  My believe is that this probably started 
back in late 80's or early 90's with all of these words revision and forcing 
the meaning. Let's agree to disagree idealogy.

josé

___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Don V Nielsen]

As R Smith pointed out, you already have a good description in your
existing documentation: "SQLite is a self-contained, server-free,
zero-configuration ... "

I would also throw in the term "library", because it is what it is. Sqlite
is just non-executable code that doesn't function on it's own. Even Sqlite
needs the command line tool to do something, otherwise it is just a library
waiting to be linked in.

Off topic, I loathe when terms like "server-less" change meaning, or when
new terms are developed to resell something that has existed for decades.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 4:19 PM Richard Hipp  wrote:

> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> seems to mean "without a server".
>
> But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
> readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
> "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
> "SQLite is serverless".
>
> How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
> "serverless" to mean "without a server"?
>
> Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
> "serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
> running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
> embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.
>
> When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
> function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
> application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
> are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
> function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
> function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
> own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
> itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.
>
> So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
> without confusing people?
>
> "no-server"?
> "sans-server"?
> "stackless"?
> "non-client/server"?
>
>
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> d...@sqlite.org
> ___
> sqlite-users mailing list
> sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
>
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Reid Thompson]

On Tue, 2020-01-28 at 10:11 +1100, John McMahon wrote:
> Define what "serverless" means to you in the SQLite context and provide
> a link or pop-up to that definition wherever "serverless" occurs in the
> documentation. Perhaps also include what it doesn't mean if you think
> this is becoming an issue.
> 
> How others choose to define "serverless" should not be your problem.
> 
> Just my pennies worth,
> John


+1 ^

___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[R Smith]

I do not have a great suggestion to add, but to observe that the best 
suggestions I think are: NOT changing, (or if we have to) "Server-Free" 
or "Localized".


Especially when you consider the statement at the top of typical SQLite 
docs might read:


"SQLite is a self-contained, server-free, zero-configuration ... " - 
seems to me to make most sense without still trespassing on the new 
fad-name.




On 2020/01/28 12:18 am, Richard Hipp wrote:

For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way


___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Richard Hipp]

On 1/28/20, Howard Chu  wrote:
>
> Wait, really? AFAICS embedded means in-process, no IPC required to operate.
>

Things like MySQL-embedded and H2 run a "server" as a thread instead
of as a separate process.  Clients then use Inter-Thread Communication
rather than Inter-Process Communication to send their queries to, and
get their results from, the database thread.  So this is really the
same thing as a server using IPC except that the server runs in the
same address space as the client.  The point of using the term
"serverless" is to indicate that SQLite does not work that way.

-- 
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[test user]

stack-capturing

It captures the stack of the host.

stack-dependent

pointer-based
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

[sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Howard Chu]

Rowan Worth wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 06:19, Richard Hipp  wrote:
> 
>> Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
>> "serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
>> running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
>> embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.

Wait, really? AFAICS embedded means in-process, no IPC required to operate.

-- 
  -- Howard Chu
  CTO, Symas Corp.   http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Roman Fleysher]

Perhaps "server" is not the right emphasis? Maybe it is the client? Thus, 
"clientless"? This means that each SQlite session serves itself. 
Self-sufficient.

Roman

From: sqlite-users  on behalf of 
Richard Hipp 
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 5:18 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database 
Subject: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

CAUTION: This email comes from an external source; the attachments and/or links 
may compromise our secure environment. Do not open or click on suspicious 
emails. Please click on the “Phish Alert” button on the top right of the 
Outlook dashboard to report any suspicious emails.

For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
seems to mean "without a server".

But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
"serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
"SQLite is serverless".

How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
"serverless" to mean "without a server"?

Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
"serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.

When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.

So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
without confusing people?

"no-server"?
"sans-server"?
"stackless"?
"non-client/server"?


--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailinglists.sqlite.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsqlite-usersdata=02%7C01%7Croman.fleysher%40einsteinmed.org%7Cacbff015160a4adadbf708d7a376e761%7C9c01f0fd65e040c089a82dfd51e62025%7C0%7C0%7C637157603390189642sdata=QLjXenXheo7mS3o3MEqmxWaD1aKv4oCUkkHJ4zwCYlM%3Dreserved=0
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Luke Amery]

in-process ?

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:19 AM Richard Hipp  wrote:

> daemon-less?
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> d...@sqlite.org
> ___
> sqlite-users mailing list
> sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
>
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Nataraj S Narayan]

Hi

How about recursive one like GNU?
Say, "SQLiteS/TL" exapanding to "Sqlite is Server Less/Thread Less"

Nataraj S Narayan

Richard Hipp writes:

> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> seems to mean "without a server".
>
> But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
> readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
> "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
> "SQLite is serverless".
>
> How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
> "serverless" to mean "without a server"?
>
> Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
> "serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
> running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
> embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.
>
> When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
> function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
> application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
> are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
> function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
> function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
> own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
> itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.
>
> So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
> without confusing people?
>
> "no-server"?
> "sans-server"?
> "stackless"?
> "non-client/server"?


-- 
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

[sqlite] www3.sqlite.org 500 server malfunction

[Domingo Alvarez Duarte]

Hello Richard !

I'm still getting this error:



fossil clone http://www3.sqlite.org/cgi/src sqlite.fossil
server says: 500 Server Malfunction
Clone done, sent: 256  received: 217  ip: 64.225.41.2
server returned an error - clone aborted



Cheers !

___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Acer Yang]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 16:13 Cory Nelson  wrote:

> in-situ
>
> I think this distinguishes sqlite as being different from an "in-proc yet
> separate server".
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:19 PM Richard Hipp  wrote:
>
> > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> > RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> > seems to mean "without a server".
> >
> > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
> > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
> > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
> > "SQLite is serverless".
> >
> > How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
> > "serverless" to mean "without a server"?
> >
> > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
> > "serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
> > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
> > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.
> >
> > When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
> > function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
> > application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
> > are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
> > function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
> > function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
> > own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
> > itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.
> >
> > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
> > without confusing people?
> >
> > "no-server"?
> > "sans-server"?
> > "stackless"?
> > "non-client/server"?
> >
> >
> > --
> > D. Richard Hipp
> > d...@sqlite.org
> > ___
> > sqlite-users mailing list
> > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
> > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
> >
>
>
> --
> Cory Nelson
> http://int64.org
> ___
> sqlite-users mailing list
> sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users


How about 'immediate'?

>
>
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Cory Nelson]

in-situ

I think this distinguishes sqlite as being different from an "in-proc yet
separate server".

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:19 PM Richard Hipp  wrote:

> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> seems to mean "without a server".
>
> But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
> readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
> "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
> "SQLite is serverless".
>
> How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
> "serverless" to mean "without a server"?
>
> Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
> "serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
> running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
> embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.
>
> When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
> function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
> application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
> are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
> function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
> function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
> own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
> itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.
>
> So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
> without confusing people?
>
> "no-server"?
> "sans-server"?
> "stackless"?
> "non-client/server"?
>
>
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> d...@sqlite.org
> ___
> sqlite-users mailing list
> sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
>


-- 
Cory Nelson
http://int64.org
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

[Dominique Devienne]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:19 PM Richard Hipp  wrote:
> How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
> "serverless" to mean "without a server"?

Don't. I'm with Warren, Jens, Stephen on this one.

Keep it, but make a new sqlite.org/serverless doc page,
and link to it when you reference that term anywhere in the doc,
to explain the original (and more accurate) meaning of the serverless term.

Regarding the other proposal:
* embedded is accurate, but may make people think this is reserved for
"embedded" micro-controller programming, which it isn't of course.
* server-free is OK
* standalone is also accurate, but too vague.

My $0.02. --DD
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users