> > Just out of curiosity, I want to ask one more question.
> > How can FK constraint fail if I am removing (replacing) row from the
> > 'child' table?
>
> The FK constraint can fail because a new row is being inserted into the
> child table. The reason statement rollback may be required is
On 2014/12/18 12:03, Dan Kennedy wrote:
On 12/18/2014 04:16 PM, Paul wrote:
I understand. I guess, I'll have to stick to UPDATE <-> INSERT.
Thank you for taking your time.
Just out of curiosity, I want to ask one more question.
How can FK constraint fail if I am removing (replacing) row from
On 12/18/2014 04:16 PM, Paul wrote:
Hi, Dan.
On 12/18/2014 02:41 PM, Paul wrote:
I want to confirm that issue is fixed for me.
Thanks again, Dan!
Please ignore this update, patch fixes this problem as well.
I want to add even more input for this issue.
I understand why there is implicit
Hi, Dan.
> On 12/18/2014 02:41 PM, Paul wrote:
> >> I want to confirm that issue is fixed for me.
> >> Thanks again, Dan!
> >>
> >>
> >> Please ignore this update, patch fixes this problem as well.
> >>
> >>> I want to add even more input for this issue.
> >>> I understand why there is implicit
On 12/18/2014 02:41 PM, Paul wrote:
I want to confirm that issue is fixed for me.
Thanks again, Dan!
Please ignore this update, patch fixes this problem as well.
I want to add even more input for this issue.
I understand why there is implicit savepoint, when I remove row from 'parent'
>
> I want to confirm that issue is fixed for me.
> Thanks again, Dan!
>
>
> Please ignore this update, patch fixes this problem as well.
>
> > I want to add even more input for this issue.
> > I understand why there is implicit savepoint, when I remove row from
> > 'parent' table.
> > But
I want to confirm that issue is fixed for me.
Thanks again, Dan!
Please ignore this update, patch fixes this problem as well.
> I want to add even more input for this issue.
> I understand why there is implicit savepoint, when I remove row from 'parent'
> table.
> But why is this also true
> On 12/16/2014 03:08 PM, Paul wrote:
> > The memory is being used by the statement journal, which you have in
> > memory. If the app did not set "journal_mode=memory" and
> > "temp_store=memory", SQLite would create a really large temp file
> > instead of using memory. Which
I want to add even more input for this issue.
I understand why there is implicit savepoint, when I remove row from 'parent'
table.
But why is this also true for a 'child' table when I perform 'INSERT OR
REPLACE'?
Removing FK reference disables journal growth. I don't understand...
I have a new
On 12/16/2014 03:08 PM, Paul wrote:
The memory is being used by the statement journal, which you have in
memory. If the app did not set "journal_mode=memory" and
"temp_store=memory", SQLite would create a really large temp file
instead of using memory. Which would still be sub-optimal, but might
>
> > > >
> > > > The memory is being used by the statement journal, which you have in
> > > > memory. If the app did not set "journal_mode=memory" and
> > > > "temp_store=memory", SQLite would create a really large temp file
> > > > instead of using memory. Which would still be sub-optimal,
> > >
> > > The memory is being used by the statement journal, which you have in
> > > memory. If the app did not set "journal_mode=memory" and
> > > "temp_store=memory", SQLite would create a really large temp file
> > > instead of using memory. Which would still be sub-optimal, but might
>
Hi Dan.
> On 12/15/2014 11:59 PM, Dan Kennedy wrote:
> > On 12/15/2014 11:11 PM, Paul wrote:
> >> Hello, dear developers
> >>
> >> Recently I've stumbled upon a very rare and strange bug.
> >> The result of this is abnormal memory usage, that does not allow us
> >> to remove
> >> fair number of
Hello Richard.
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Paul wrote:
> >
> > Hello, dear developers
> >
> > Recently I've stumbled upon a very rare and strange bug.
> > The result of this is abnormal memory usage, that does not allow us to
> > remove
> > fair number of rows from a table
On 12/15/2014 11:59 PM, Dan Kennedy wrote:
On 12/15/2014 11:11 PM, Paul wrote:
Hello, dear developers
Recently I've stumbled upon a very rare and strange bug.
The result of this is abnormal memory usage, that does not allow us
to remove
fair number of rows from a table due to the limit of
On 12/15/2014 11:11 PM, Paul wrote:
Hello, dear developers
Recently I've stumbled upon a very rare and strange bug.
The result of this is abnormal memory usage, that does not allow us to remove
fair number of rows from a table due to the limit of memory, available for 32bit
process. This is
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Paul wrote:
>
> Hello, dear developers
>
> Recently I've stumbled upon a very rare and strange bug.
> The result of this is abnormal memory usage, that does not allow us to
> remove
> fair number of rows from a table due to the limit of memory,
Sorry, I've forgot to mention my sqlite version, here it is:
3.8.7.1 2014-10-29 13:59:56 3b7b72c4685aa5cf5e675c2c47ebec10d9704221
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Hello, dear developers
Recently I've stumbled upon a very rare and strange bug.
The result of this is abnormal memory usage, that does not allow us to remove
fair number of rows from a table due to the limit of memory, available for 32bit
process. This is strange, because database size is
19 matches
Mail list logo