Re: [sqlite] Problem with sqlite3_exec

the problem arises when I am trying to erase lines and I have a power failure so that it deletes rows but sometimes I have a line that is deleted from the first table and not from the second. (yes i have a table with this name table2 and i can't read the return value when it fails caused by the

Re: [sqlite] SQLite exception

Rishi Ravindran wrote: > > I am getting an exception when I try to debug > the sqlite-netFx-source-1.0.91.0 source code in VS 2010 on the following > line below... > https://system.data.sqlite.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/faq.wiki#q20 -- Joe Mistachkin

Re: [sqlite] basic "Window function"

"howzit" is my prefered greetings word. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] Acceptable growth of WAL file size?

On 14 Mar 2014, at 7:01pm, veeresh kumar wrote: > Query: > -- > I would like to understand if the WAL file size grows beyond 100 megabytes to > range say 500 to 900 megabytes, what would be the impact ?. > > - Is it just a read/write performance impact ? Or >

[sqlite] Acceptable growth of WAL file size?

I saw below thing listed as disadvantage in http://www.sqlite.org/wal.html#ckpt . “WAL works best with smaller transactions. WAL does not work well for very large transactions. For transactions larger than about 100 megabytes, traditional rollback journal modes will likely be faster. For

Re: [sqlite] Sqlite lock granularity

On 3/14/2014 12:42 PM, Sandu Buraga wrote: For write operations the SQLite needs to lock the entire database file, using WAL the granularity is improved and the locks are at table level. False. Which part of the documentation led you to believe that? You might be thinking of shared cache mode

Re: [sqlite] Sqlite lock granularity

On 14 Mar 2014, at 4:42pm, Sandu Buraga wrote: > For write operations the SQLite needs to lock the entire database file, > using WAL the granularity is improved and the locks are at table level. Is > it possible to get a better granularity, for example for a group of

[sqlite] Sqlite lock granularity

Hi, For write operations the SQLite needs to lock the entire database file, using WAL the granularity is improved and the locks are at table level. Is it possible to get a better granularity, for example for a group of rows or even more to row level? I am asking this because I have scenario with

Re: [sqlite] Reader locks writer in truncate mode?

I should have been more specific. There are lots of threads, Identifying which thread is having the lock at any given time would have been helpful. Also need clarification on this one - A reader thread should still be able to read data from database until writer thread in transaction tries to

[sqlite] SQLite exception

Hi I am getting an exception when I try to debug the sqlite-netFx-source-1.0.91.0 source code in VS 2010 on the following line below... DbProviderFactory factory = DbProviderFactories.GetFactory(factoryString); The exception detail is reproduced below...

Re: [sqlite] which of these is faster?

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: >> > In the original problem, there was already an index on the term for which > the min() was requested. >. > Whit your CTE-generated random integers, there is not an index on the > values. So "SELECT min(x) FROM..."

Re: [sqlite] Problem compiling SQLite 3.8.4.1 with SQLITE_MAX_MMAP_SIZE=0

2014-03-14 12:06 GMT+01:00 Stephan Beal : > i posted it to sqlite-dev on Feb. 19th, but Brad was on CC, and maybe that > list elides mails with CCs. Well, I just finished running the test-suite "make test" for the Cygwin64 build of SQLite 3.8.4.1 (with the

Re: [sqlite] which of these is faster?

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Max Vlasov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > > > Once you do that, you'll see that the opcode sequence is only slightly > > different between the two. They should both run at about the

Re: [sqlite] which of these is faster?

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > Once you do that, you'll see that the opcode sequence is only slightly > different between the two. They should both run at about the same speed. > I doubt you'll be able to measure the difference. > > Actually a

Re: [sqlite] Problem compiling SQLite 3.8.4.1 with SQLITE_MAX_MMAP_SIZE=0

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > Hey, that's exactly the same solution! Pity that Brad didn't report > that upstream, the fix could have been in SQLite 3.8.4.1 already. > i posted it to sqlite-dev on Feb. 19th, but Brad was on CC, and maybe that

Re: [sqlite] Problem compiling SQLite 3.8.4.1 with SQLITE_MAX_MMAP_SIZE=0

2014-03-14 11:48 GMT+01:00 Stephan Beal : > See also this fix: > > http://fossil.wanderinghorse.net/repos/libfossil/index.cgi/info/a9263730f2 > > that's from Brad Harder, for BSD. Hey, that's exactly the same solution! Pity that Brad didn't report that upstream, the fix

Re: [sqlite] Problem compiling SQLite 3.8.4.1 with SQLITE_MAX_MMAP_SIZE=0

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > I just found out that I was too quick upgrading libfossil to use > the latest SQLite 3.8.4.1 amalgamation: > < > http://fossil.wanderinghorse.net/repos/libfossil/index.cgi/info/2de81ae7b6 > > > this broke the

[sqlite] Problem compiling SQLite 3.8.4.1 with SQLITE_MAX_MMAP_SIZE=0

Hi all, I just found out that I was too quick upgrading libfossil to use the latest SQLite 3.8.4.1 amalgamation: this broke the Cygwin build ;-(. The reason is that libfossil is very strict, considering any

Re: [sqlite] failure to build static library with -DSQLITE_ENABLE_ICU

2014-03-14 0:30 GMT+01:00 Alex Loukissas : > I have verified that adding the said include fixes the issue (1-line patch): > > diff --git sqlite3.c sqlite3.c > index 7c6d3e2..a9399e4 100644 > --- sqlite3.c > +++ sqlite3.c > @@ -145656,6 +145656,7 @@ SQLITE_API int