Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

can be interpreted the same as SQLITE_BUSY? > > Cheers, > Dave. > > > -Original Message- > From: Hynes, Tom [mailto:tom.hy...@inin.com] > Sent: 06 March 2009 05:10 > To: General Discussion of SQLite Database > Subject: Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_M

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

: 06 March 2009 05:10 To: General Discussion of SQLite Database Subject: Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step() Thanks Dan! -Original Message- From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Dan Sent: Thursday, March 05

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

Thanks Dan! -Original Message- From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Dan Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:08 PM To: General Discussion of SQLite Database Subject: Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step() On Mar

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:26:38 +0100, Marcus Grimm wrote: >The website is allready excellent, I'm not at all complaining... > >Anyway, I've placed an updated version of the thread test program on the >web: > >http://www.exomio.de/sqlitethreadtest.c > >If somebody found it

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

Dan wrote: > On Mar 6, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Marcus Grimm wrote: > >> I just want to add another hint that I learned yesterday: >> >> when sqlite3_step() returns SQLITE_LOCKED be aware >> that sqlite3_reset() will most likely also return >> SQLITE_LOCKED and thus it is necessary to repeat calling >>

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

On Mar 6, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Marcus Grimm wrote: > I just want to add another hint that I learned yesterday: > > when sqlite3_step() returns SQLITE_LOCKED be aware > that sqlite3_reset() will most likely also return > SQLITE_LOCKED and thus it is necessary to repeat calling > it until it returns

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

; >> Tom >> >> -Original Message- >> From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org >> [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org >> ] On Behalf Of Dan >> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 12:38 PM >> To: General Discussion of SQLite Database >> Subje

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

lite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org > ] On Behalf Of Dan > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 12:38 PM > To: General Discussion of SQLite Database > Subject: Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step() > > > On Mar 6, 2009, at 12:22 AM, Marcus Grimm wrote: >

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Dan Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 12:38 PM To: General Discussion of SQLite Database Subject: Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step() On Mar 6, 2009, at 12:22 AM, Marcus Grimm wrote: > Dan, > > I'm not sure what you mean by te

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

gt;>>>>>>> To: kennethinbox-sql...@yahoo.com, "General Discussion of >>>>>>>> SQLite >>>>>>>> Database" <sqlite-users@sqlite.org> >>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 4:31 PM >>>>>>>

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

ation. Just to see if that >>>>> can be used to reproduce the effect. If that one runs >>>>> without any problem, it's my fault, if not: I'll post >>>>> it here for further discussions... ;) >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your feedback >

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

's my fault, if not: I'll post >>>> it here for further discussions... ;) >>>> >>>> Thanks for your feedback >>>> >>>> Marcus >>>> >>>> >>>>> Marcus, >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure i

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

the return value from >>>> the >>>> sqlite3_prepare_v2 call. Could the code be entering the do loop >>>> when an >>>> error was returned from prepare? >>>> >>>> Just an idea. >>>> >>>> Have you tried

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

turn value from >>> the >>> sqlite3_prepare_v2 call. Could the code be entering the do loop >>> when an >>> error was returned from prepare? >>> >>> Just an idea. >>> >>> Have you tried the reset call as DRH had suggested?

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

gt; to mention once more that it is only during an artificial >>> stress >>> test, mainly to verify my implementation. Under normal >>> usercondition it is very unlikely to happend and sqlite >>> works perfect as expected. >>> >>> Thanks >&

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

On Wed, 3/4/09, Marcus Grimm <mgr...@medcom-online.de> wrote: > >> From: Marcus Grimm <mgr...@medcom-online.de> >> Subject: Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step() >> To: kennethinbox-sql...@yahoo.com, "General Discussion of SQLite >> Databa

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

? Your prior post indicated you had more code and another loop. Can you post the full code for both loops? HTH --- On Wed, 3/4/09, Marcus Grimm <mgr...@medcom-online.de> wrote: > From: Marcus Grimm <mgr...@medcom-online.de> > Subject: Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISU

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

-- On Wed, 3/4/09, Marcus Grimm <mgr...@medcom-online.de> wrote: > >> From: Marcus Grimm <mgr...@medcom-online.de> >> Subject: Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step() >> To: "General Discussion of SQLite Database" <sqlite-user

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

<mgr...@medcom-online.de> wrote: > From: Marcus Grimm <mgr...@medcom-online.de> > Subject: Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step() > To: "General Discussion of SQLite Database" <sqlite-users@sqlite.org> > Date: Wednesday, March 4

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

Richard, thanks again for the feedback. However, I don't see how it can happend that the statement is completed internally without returning SQLITE_DONE. In the particular code of the "reading thread" I do something like: -- sqlite3_prepare_v2(db, "SELECT * FROM TableA", -1, , 0); /** step throu

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

On Mar 4, 2009, at 9:35 AM, Marcus Grimm wrote: > hi, > > OK, the value of p->magic is 519C2973 (VDBE_MAGIC_HALT) That means the prepared statement has run to completion and needs to be reset using sqlite3_reset() before you continue. D. Richard Hipp d...@hwaci.com

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

hi, OK, the value of p->magic is 519C2973 (VDBE_MAGIC_HALT) that should mean that "VDBE has completed execution"... I don't know... in that case I should get a SQLITE_DONE when stepping throu the result set, right ? Just some additional info: It is the last sqlite version, threadsafe is true

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

On Mar 4, 2009, at 8:31 AM, Marcus Grimm wrote: > Richard, > Thanks for looking into this. > > I've placed some debug output in the sqlite2_step function > and I found that it returns SQLITE_MISUSE here: > > -- > static int sqlite3Step(Vdbe *p){ > sqlite3 *db; > int rc; > > assert(p); >

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

Richard, Thanks for looking into this. I've placed some debug output in the sqlite2_step function and I found that it returns SQLITE_MISUSE here: -- static int sqlite3Step(Vdbe *p){ sqlite3 *db; int rc; assert(p); if( p->magic!=VDBE_MAGIC_RUN ) { return SQLITE_MISUSE;

Re: [sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:19 AM, Marcus Grimm wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm doing a little stress test on a server application and run into > a problem when two threads are trying to access the database. > Here is the background: > 1. shared cache is enabled prior open any DB connection. > 2. Each thread

[sqlite] shared cache and SQLITE_MISUSE on sqlite3_step()

Hi all, I'm doing a little stress test on a server application and run into a problem when two threads are trying to access the database. Here is the background: 1. shared cache is enabled prior open any DB connection. 2. Each thread then opens a DB connection. 3. Thread A just reads table