Hello Jens and Warren,
Performance is really one of the reasons, second is concurrent writer
and readers (which can be in fact viewed as part of the performance).
Pavel
On 04/04/2018 06:57 PM, Jens Alfke wrote:
On Apr 4, 2018, at 9:01 AM, Warren Young wrote:
Why turn on WAL mode at all,
Hello SQLite Users, fyi ...
25th Annual Tcl/Tk Conference (Tcl'2018)
http://www.tcl.tk/community/tcl2018/
October 15 - 19, 2018
Crowne Plaza Houston River Oaks
2712 Southwest Freeway, 77098
Houston, Texas, USA
[ NEWS
* [Registration is open](https://www.tcl.tk/community/tcl2018/register.html
On 4/4/18, Deon Brewis wrote:
> assert( sqlite3_mutex_held(pPage->pBt->mutex) );
This verifies that the current thread holds the pPage->pBt->mutex
mutex. The assert() will fire an abort() if the mutex is not held.
--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
_
Dear SQLiters,
I am using sqlite3 shell from bash scripts and I stumbled on what I think is
incorrect exit code on error. In the first scenario, on error the exit code is
1 -- expected, in the second it is 0 -- unexpected. The error message is the
same in both. Is that normal?
echo -e "ww; \
assert( sqlite3_mutex_held(pPage->pBt->mutex) );
Inside this stack:
#4 0x000103e89384 in releasePageNotNull at sqlite3.c:62589
#5 0x000103e87a94 in btreeReleaseAllCursorPages at sqlite3.c:61069
#6 0x000103e8ee00 in sqlite3BtreeCloseCursor at sqlite3.c:64809
Looks like when it goes and makes the table it doesn't give it an explicit
"blob" type, as you would think from the phrase "When an expression is a simple
reference to a column of a real table (not a VIEW or subquery) then the
expression has the same affinity as the table column." It gives it no
In documentation for version 3.21.0:
in datatypes3.html
...
3. Type Affinity
...
Each column in an SQLite 3 database is assigned one of the following
type affinities:
TEXT
NUMERIC
INTEGER
REAL
BLOB
(Historical note: The "BLOB" type affinity used to be called "NONE". But
I don't think you can have all of the above. The "should never get corrupted"
part of SQLite comes from having the data in 2 non-volatile storage files
during a commit/checkpoint. Problems while writing data to the main file are
covered by having the rollback journal or WAL on disk to recover fr
On 4 Apr 2018, at 3:01pm, Pavel Cernohorsky
wrote:
> Hello, does anybody know if there is some possibility to not have WAL file as
> a normal file on the disk, but only in memory? I understand that all the
> modifications to the database would get lost in case of the application / OS
> crash,
You could put the WAL in a tmpfs/ramfs so the DB would only get corrupted if
the OS crashed, it'd still be there for recovering from application crashes.
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org
> On Apr 4, 2018, at 9:01 AM, Warren Young wrote:
>
> Why turn on WAL mode at all, then?
Performance, probably. An in-memory WAL would scream.
—Jens
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cg
On 04/04/2018 09:01 PM, Pavel Cernohorsky wrote:
Hello, does anybody know if there is some possibility to not have WAL
file as a normal file on the disk, but only in memory? I understand
that all the modifications to the database would get lost in case of
the application / OS crash, but for my
On Apr 4, 2018, at 8:01 AM, Pavel Cernohorsky
wrote:
>
> Hello, does anybody know if there is some possibility to not have WAL file as
> a normal file on the disk, but only in memory?
Why turn on WAL mode at all, then?
Are you maybe using a SQLite setup where WAL is enabled by default? If so
Hello, does anybody know if there is some possibility to not have WAL
file as a normal file on the disk, but only in memory? I understand that
all the modifications to the database would get lost in case of the
application / OS crash, but for my application, I only need the level of
durability
Two points.
1. If any NULL constraint on any vtable is to return no rows, then why does
the vtable code get called in the first place?
2. The shipped extension series.c had some NULL default constraint
behavior. Are such constraint defaults now bad form?
In other words, the LEFT strength reduct
15 matches
Mail list logo