Hi,
For the query below, versions 3.8.11.0 and 3.8.11.1 return only 1 row.
For some reason, the LEFT JOIN seems to behave like a JOIN.
Older versions (tested 3.8.7.4 and 3.8.10.2) correctly return 2 rows.
SELECT *
FROM (
SELECT 'apple' fruit
UNION ALL SELECT 'banana'
) a
JOIN (
Just realized that this simpler case shows the same problem:
SELECT *
FROM (
SELECT 'apple' fruit
UNION ALL SELECT 'banana'
) a
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT 1 isyellow
) c ON a.fruit='banana'
;
On 22/08/15 00:58, Mark Brand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For the query below, versions 3.8.11.0 and
Hello !
I'm testing the new json functions and when I tried this:
select json_array(*) as json from one_table;
I've got :
[]
[]
..
Then I tried with some custom functions accepting variable number of
parameters and realize that "*" is not expanded for function calls.
There
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:58:51 +0200, "sqlite-mail"
wrote:
> That's why I think that expose a basic SQL ANSI catalog would make this kind
> of work and others a lot easier.
That would be nice to have in some development environment (you
could develop one, if nobody else has done it), but in my
The doc page for SQLITE_BUSY covers SQLITE_BUSY when there are multiple
connections to the database.
SQLite Result Codes (SQLITE_BUSY)
http://www.sqlite.org/rescode.html#busy
But, I have only one connection. I believe the case where SQLITE_BUSY is
returned by sqlite_close()
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:19:38 -0700
jungle Boogie wrote:
> Hi Dr. H,
> On 21 August 2015 at 14:23, Richard Hipp wrote:
> > On 8/21/15, jungle Boogie wrote:
> >>
> >> Is it possible to compile in libtclsqlite3?
> >>
> >
> > Dunno. But you can compile the libtclsqlite3.so yourself:
> >
> >
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 05:07:55 -0500
Jeff M wrote:
> The doc page for SQLITE_BUSY covers SQLITE_BUSY when there are
> multiple connections to the database.
>
> SQLite Result Codes (SQLITE_BUSY)
> http://www.sqlite.org/rescode.html#busy
>
> But, I have only one connection. I believe
On 22 Aug 2015 at 11:01, Kees Nuyt wrote:
> It even would be fine to me if all ALTER TABLE features would be
> removed.
I disagree with this, although I'd be satisfied if there were a separate
library and API for such things. With an evolving application I need to have
ALTER TABLE. Even the
No, I needed to set a timeout (see previous messages in this thread). I've
fixed my problem. I'm suggesting now that the documentation for SQLITE_BUSY
is incomplete.
Jeff
> On Aug 22, 2015, at 5:13 AM, Eduardo Morras wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 05:07:55 -0500
> Jeff M wrote:
>
>> The
On 8/22/15, sqlite-mail wrote:
>
> Then I tried with some custom functions accepting variable number of
> parameters and realize that "*" is not expanded for function calls.
>
> There is any reason for it or it's a forgotten implementation ?
>
Well, one reason is that "somefunction(*)" does not
Thanks for the answer !
How hard would be to implement something like that ?
O maybe a function called "expand" that would return the expanded wildcard
parameters ?
Ex: select json_array(expand(*)) as json from one_table;
Ex2 inside a trigger: select raise("Something is not right here
On 2015-08-22 11:42 AM, sqlite-mail wrote:
> Hello !
>
> I'm testing the new json functions and when I tried this:
>
> select json_array(*) as json from one_table;
>
> I've got :
>
> []
>
> []
>
> ..
>
> Then I tried with some custom functions accepting variable number of
> parameters and
but I fail to get it done.
Hello,
I got the following problem, that I cannot get worked out.
I have a table that has 3 columns A, B and C.
C is a boolean Column, that indicates if the record has been logically
deleted, It shall not be removed from the database.
The table shall be ordered
True. The C89/90 standard has of course been withdrawn and I don't have a
copy. However, based on the drafts I have available the entirety of the text
I quoted was added after the last correction to C89/90 and first appears in
C99. In my opinion it would be unwise to rely on the omission of
I am running into a situation with 2 threads where a busy handler is being
called on one thread and unless the busy handler returns 0 and the calling
code retries the query, neither thread will be able to make progress.
Below is some background information:
I am working on project that uses
afriendandmore wrote:
> The table shall be ordered according to A. (Order by A)
> But if C ist true and to the value B1 in this Record, there exists another
> Record with B2 and B2 = B1, then B1 should be ordered in the row above B2.
Do those two records have the same A values?
Regards,
On 22 Aug 2015, at 2:33pm, Jon Kuhn wrote:
> I am working on project that uses SQLite to save records in an in memory
> database and periodically push them to an on-disk database. The project is
> multi-threaded with several threads accessing the databases (memory and
> on-disk) at the same
Unless of course your objective is to write maximally portable code. It's
not perfect, and certainly things have been done to accommodate more recent
standards, but C89 compilers (including compilers that claim to support it
through a switch) are more common than even full C99 implementations.
On 8/22/15, Scott Robison wrote:
> I don't object to a change to accommodate C99 null
> pointer requirements
Please note that the warning in question has nothing to do with NULL
pointers. The pointer parameter (0) is non-null. The issue is that
the last parameter (2) which is a size_t might
On 2015-08-21 11:23 PM, Will Parsons wrote:
> On 21 Aug 2015, R.Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-08-21 04:47 AM, Will Parsons wrote:
>>> I'm working on a program that involves a catalogue of books. Part of
>>> the database schema looks like this:
>>>
>>> create table Books(id integer primary key,
>>>
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 8/22/15, Scott Robison wrote:
> > I don't object to a change to accommodate C99 null
> > pointer requirements
>
> Please note that the warning in question has nothing to do with NULL
> pointers. The pointer parameter (0) is non-null.
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015
> afriendandmore wrote:
> > The table shall be ordered according to A. (Order by A)
> > But if C ist true and to the value B1 in this Record, there exists
> another Record with B2 and B2 = B1, then B1 should be ordered in the row
> above B2.
If the B1 and B2, to which you
>
> how can I trunc time in EntityFramework?
>
> I tried it this way:
>
> model.Datas
>.GroupBy(d =>
> DbFunctions.TruncateTime(d.TimeStamp))
>.Select(d => d.Key.Value)
>.ToArray();
>
> But get this error:
>
Hi Ryan,
I get your point. :)
It seems the I was misunderstanding this help mailing list. I thought it's also
support for 'System.Data.SQLite'.
In the way 'System.Data.SQLite' is an ADO.NET provider for SQLite and also give
support for entity framework.
that because I was asking if it support
On Saturday, 22 Aug 2015 1:05 PM -0400, R.Smith wrote:
>
>
> On 2015-08-21 11:23 PM, Will Parsons wrote:
>> On 21 Aug 2015, R.Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2015-08-21 04:47 AM, Will Parsons wrote:
I'm working on a program that involves a catalogue of books. Part of
the database schema looks
25 matches
Mail list logo
