> I would agree that no warning is needed for for columns that don't state
> any affinity, or for a non-affinity FK that refers to some PK with
> affinity.
>
> I tend to agree with OP that an explicitly text foreign key referring to
> an explicitly int primary key is probably worth a warning
Richard Hipp <drh@...> writes:
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Tom Matrix <ratomatrix@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > The following query reports 18900080 rows (after some computation time):
> >
>
> Is this the correct answer for
Richard Hipp <drh@...> writes:
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Tom Matrix <ratomatrix@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I’ve encountered a problem, which is hardly reproducable on arbitrary
> > databases, therefore I attached one.
> >
>
> A simple,
> Can you send the database directly to me at drh@... please?
It's already sent, and is also available in this shared folder:
https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B7kiuyPBHpjqYm8wZmdNcGI3c1E/edit?usp=sharing
___
sqlite-users mailing list
> First of all attachments are stripped out from this list, so nobody
> saw your database.
Sorry for that. Now I created a shared folder so everyone has access and can
take a look at it:
https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B7kiuyPBHpjqYm8wZmdNcGI3c1E/edit?usp=sharing
It contains the database and
> Could it be some of the features that SQLite doesn't support?
>
> http://www.sqlite.org/omitted.html
>
> /Patrik
No, I think this problem is independent from those thing. Only basic SQL
features are used.
___
sqlite-users mailing list
Hello,
I’ve encountered a problem, which is hardly reproducable on arbitrary
databases, therefore I attached one.
The problem is that inner join omits the result on large datasets. But
again, ’large’ does not necessarly refer simply the amount of data; I
couldn’t reproduce it on different
7 matches
Mail list logo
