Hai,
I am using SQLite with c.To increase the performance I am using inmemory
Database.
How Can I view the contents stored in the inmemory database?
Please help me.
Regards,
B.Durgadevi
marcglennjamon wrote:
>
> Hello guys,
>
> Is there an option in SQLite to make the database file resid
Alexey Pechnikov wrote:
> I did get this frustrate behaviour in my prototype of the versioning
> datastore where all versions of records are stored permanently. In my
> example the foreign identifiers are stored in the user table and all rows
> versions are stored in the user_record table. For vis
I did get this frustrate behaviour in my prototype of the versioning
datastore where all versions of records are stored permanently. In my
example the foreign identifiers are stored in the user table and all rows
versions are stored in the user_record table. For visualization we need to
get only la
And...if you drop the "group by" from the view it's correct again
sqlite> drop view view_user;
sqlite> CREATE VIEW view_user AS
...> SELECT user.id,user_record.*
...> FROM user, user_record
...> WHERE user.id=user_record.user_id
...> ;
sqlite> select * from test;
11|76|8|11|A
4|86
To add on...it does NOT work under 3.7.3...so perhaps that's what you're using?
I agree this doesn't seem intuitive at all...
4|87|3|4|B
11|76|8|11|A
sqlite> select count(*) from test;
1
Michael D. Black
Senior Scientist
Advanced Analytics Directorate
Northrop Grumman Information Systems
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Alexey Pechnikov wrote:
> > The result of the view above is undefined. It will choose one of the
> > user_record rows for each distinct user.id, but you don't know which
> row.
>
> Yes! But it choose only single user_record row for two distinct user_id in
> count(
You failed to say what version you are using. Running your SQL on 3.7.2 works
just fine.
SQLite version 3.7.2
Enter ".help" for instructions
Enter SQL statements terminated with a ";"
sqlite> CREATE TABLE user
...> (
...> id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY
...> );
sqlite> INSERT INTO "user" VALU
> The result of the view above is undefined. It will choose one of the
> user_record rows for each distinct user.id, but you don't know which row.
Yes! But it choose only single user_record row for two distinct user_id in
count(*) expression.
Are you really think that count(*)=1 for _two_ rows i
On Sat Oct 23 20:57:56 GMT 2010, H. Phil Duby wrote:
> Give the described conditions, I do not think you need to worry about the
> WAL file growing without bound. I think that each increase should be
> smaller than the previous one, and will stop growing all together [for your
> stress test] when
Just in case this has slipped thru cause it took a while for me to
register, here is my reply again.
On 10/09/29 23:41, Walter Meinl wrote:
>>
>> If the underlying VFS does not support shared-memory (which the OS/2 VFS
>> does not) then SQLite simply will not go into WAL mode. No patching is
>> n
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Alexey Pechnikov wrote:
>
> CREATE VIEW view_user AS
> SELECT user.id,user_record.*
> FROM user, user_record
> WHERE user.id=user_record.user_id
> GROUP BY user.id
> ORDER BY name ASC;
>
The result of the view above is undefined. It will choose one of the
user_re
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 09:56:22PM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On many (most?) filesystems, it is faster to overwrite an existing area of a
> file than it is to extend the file by writing past the end. That's why
> SQLite doesn't truncate the WAL file on each checkpoint - so that subsequent
> wri
By sql script below I get count(*)=1 for two rows in result set! I use
SQLite 3.7.3. In 3.7.0.1 this work correct.
---
CREATE TABLE user
(
id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY
);
INSERT INTO "user" VALUES(4);
INSERT INTO "user" VALUES(11);
CREATE TABLE user_record
(
reco
Depends what you mean by "noticeable"...but you can test it yourself.
Just .dump the database, restart with a new name, and .load it back again.
Similar to what you should see if you do it yourself.
If you choose option 3 remember that users WILL see the database and be able to
copy it quite
On 25-Oct-2010, at 1:28 PM, Neville Franks wrote:
> I'd also suggest option 3. And make sure you extract the file to a
> folder that the user has permission to access.
>
Yes, that's possible. Will it be noticeably slow to write say 200MB db to
another file? And also another reason, my client d
> Also even with a signed rowid and if you keep all rowids positive, you can
> still insert 1,000,000,000 rows per second continuously for 292 years before
> you run out.
Excellent. I think you should adopt that as a strapline Richard.
--
Matthew Jones
Hewlett-Packard Ltd
___
16 matches
Mail list logo
