Hi, I think it would be good idea, because: - it doesn't do any harm for existing single threaded applications - let's you use the driver in multithreaded applications (the current implementation is more or less unusable in this case) - it doesn't change a thing for multi-process applications.
Lg Philipp On Nov 9, 3:25 am, "Dan Kubb (dkubb)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Should the do_sqlite3 driver have the mutex if it's not possible to > have multiple threads write at the same time? > > Dan > (dkubb) > > On Nov 8, 2:16 am, Philipp Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 2:57 pm, "Dirkjan Bussink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Well, if that is the use case, I'd recommend against using sqlite in > > > the first place. For me it's strong point is having a simple no hassle > > > database system, usable within an application, but not something you > > > should use as a central datastore for multiple applications, services, > > > etc. > > > Yes, me neither, but in this case it's only one (multithreaded) > > application that reads and writes the database very rarely, but > > sometimes it happens that up to 30 thread start to write concurrently. > > > The other argument against a full fledged rdms is, that this > > application runs on all our servers, cannot use a central database and > > needs to have a low memory footprint and low administrative overhead. > > > I think I'll go with a mutex in execute_reader and execute_non_query > > and see if this solves the problem for me (as performance is not an > > issue in this case). > > > Thank for your help! > > > Philipp Schmid --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DataMapper" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/datamapper?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
