Re: [sqlite] Transaction involving multiple attached databases

2013-11-26 Thread Hick Gunter
Not without reading the source code and patching it at a very deep level. In our setup we use virtual tables almost exclusively and these do not support transactions. There are also dedicated writers for each set of tables, so table locking outside of SQLite is sufficient. The only changes that

[sqlite] count (*) performance

2013-11-26 Thread veeresh kumar
Hi , I see that in release history for 3.8.1 below item. "Estimate the sizes of table and index rows and use the smallest applicable B-Tree for full scans and "count(*)" operations." Does it mean that performance of count(*) has been improved in 3.8.1 and if yes by how much? We were using

Re: [sqlite] SQLite version 3.8.2 running 2.5x faster for some queries.

2013-11-26 Thread James K. Lowden
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:44:15 +0100 Luuk wrote: > On 25-11-2013 13:41, Simon Slavin wrote: > > I'm wondering whether there's an argument that it should be > > evaluated just once for a transaction. > > I'm still thinking about this question, > > i can think of some benefits if

[sqlite] SQLite version 3.8.2 release schedule

2013-11-26 Thread Richard Hipp
SQLite version 3.8.2 is tentatively scheduled for release on 2013-12-10. That date can move in either direction. Snapshots of the latest beta code can be obtained from the http://www.sqlite.org/download.html download page. A summary of changes in the 3.8.2 release can be seen at

Re: [sqlite] Transaction involving multiple attached databases

2013-11-26 Thread Peter Aronson
And you can't execute it at all if any of the attached databases are read-only.   Peter >On 11/26/2013 2:24 PM, Joshua Grauman wrote: >> If I have multiple databases attached and then do a: >> BEGIN EXCLUSIVE >> >> I assume all the sqlite3 tables involved get locked? > >All the database files

Re: [sqlite] Transaction involving multiple attached databases

2013-11-26 Thread Igor Tandetnik
On 11/26/2013 2:24 PM, Joshua Grauman wrote: If I have multiple databases attached and then do a: BEGIN EXCLUSIVE I assume all the sqlite3 tables involved get locked? All the database files are locked. Is there a way to lock only one of the attached tables? I'm pretty sure there isn't,

[sqlite] Transaction involving multiple attached databases

2013-11-26 Thread Joshua Grauman
Hello all, If I have multiple databases attached and then do a: BEGIN EXCLUSIVE I assume all the sqlite3 tables involved get locked? Is there a way to lock only one of the attached tables? Thanks. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org

Re: [sqlite] Failed test on aarch64

2013-11-26 Thread Richard Hipp
Checkin http://www.sqlite.org/src/info/6f53fc7106 is an important behavior change for SQLite. The check-in above changes the behavior of REAL-to-INTEGER casts where the REAL value is larger than the largest possible integer. For example: SELECT CAST(9223372036854775808.0 to INTEGER); All

Re: [sqlite] Failed test on aarch64

2013-11-26 Thread Richard Hipp
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Jan Staněk wrote: > Hello, > I'm trying to build sqlite for aarch64 (ARMv8) and one of the expression > tests is failing (specifically e_expr-31.2.4) with: > > Expected: [integer -9223372036854775808] > > Got: [integer

Re: [sqlite] Failed test on aarch64

2013-11-26 Thread Clemens Ladisch
Jan Staněk wrote: > I'm trying to build sqlite for aarch64 (ARMv8) and one of the expression > tests is failing (specifically e_expr-31.2.4) with: >> Expected: [integer -9223372036854775808] >> Got: [integer 9223372036854775807] > From the comment, I gather that this should test correct

[sqlite] Failed test on aarch64

2013-11-26 Thread Jan Staněk
Hello, I'm trying to build sqlite for aarch64 (ARMv8) and one of the expression tests is failing (specifically e_expr-31.2.4) with: > Expected: [integer -9223372036854775808] > Got: [integer 9223372036854775807] >From the comment, I gather that this should test correct CASTing from REAL to

Re: [sqlite] System.Data.SQLite version 1.0.89.0 released

2013-11-26 Thread Jan Slodicka
>> 2) SqliteDataReader.GetOrdinal() > This does not appear to be entirely compatible, most notable due to not > taking the keyInfo into account. Sorry, I forgot that we eliminated all keyInfo-related code. Anyway, it still would make sense to extend caching to all column names that were

Re: [sqlite] Does sqlite has db file-size restriction on Solaris 10?

2013-11-26 Thread Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt
Ah ok, I thought the Xerial driver no longer supported the nestedvm stuff. What you'll need to do is compile the Xerial binary for Solaris. See https://bitbucket.org/xerial/sqlite-jdbc/wiki/Home#BuildfromSource for details. Pepijn On 11/26/2013 06:48 AM, Liang Kunming wrote: Hi, Pepijn,