This is exactly the expected behaviour of „journal mode“ with an insufficient
timeout value in the reader connection (or none set at all). This is
technically not an error condition, just a notification that the requested
operation cannot be done „just right now“ and needs to be retried
Thank you for the response.
Using 1 connection per thread will allow the reader thread to read all of the
"old" records (and none of the "new" records). Then, the writer can add the
"new" records. A subsequent read will return both "old " and "new" records.
If this is the case the reader
Maybe you should be using IS TRUE. See https://sqlite.org/lang_expr.html
Boolean Expressions
The SQL language features several contexts where an expression is
evaluated and the result converted to a boolean (true or false) value. These
contexts are:
• the WHERE clause of a
An SQLite connection is not a unix standard file handle. By using only one
connection for two concurrent tasks, you are getting interference from
operations which would usually be isolated from each other. Sharing a
connection between threads is there because SQlite also runs on embedded
Tables with complex triggers (possibly limited to "Insert...With", though
that is not clear), fail with "no such table".
The following produces the error in 3.26; a much simpler trigger does not
produce the error.
|Create Table LOG_ENTRY(||
|| LOG_ENTRY_ID int primary key,||
||
On Sunday, 2 December, 2018 12:57, Simon Slavin wrote:
>On 2 Dec 2018, at 7:29pm, E.Pasma wrote:
>> drop table x;
>> create table x(value INTEGER PRIMARY KEY) WITHOUT ROWID;
>>
>> insert into x select random() from generate_series where start=1
>and stop=1000;
>> Run Time: real 88.759 user
On 2 Dec 2018, at 7:29pm, E.Pasma wrote:
> drop table x;
> create table x(value INTEGER PRIMARY KEY) WITHOUT ROWID;
>
> insert into x select random() from generate_series where start=1 and
> stop=1000;
> Run Time: real 88.759 user 36.276227 sys 44.190566
Realtime is 88.759
> create table
> 2 dec. 2018, Keith Medcalf:
>
>
> Well if it is unique and not null, then why not just make it the rowid? In
> either case, you would still have to permute the storage tree at insert time
> if the inserts were not in-order. So let us compare them shall we:
>
> sqlite> create table
Well if it is unique and not null, then why not just make it the rowid? In
either case, you would still have to permute the storage tree at insert time if
the inserts were not in-order. So let us compare them shall we:
sqlite> create table x(value INTEGER PRIMARY KEY);
sqlite> insert into x
> 2 dec. 2018, E.Pasma:
>
>> 30 nov. 2018, AJ Miles:
>>
>> Ah, this tool seems very handy. For those curious, I'll paste the results
>> below. The index approximately doubles the storage size, but I am
>> intentionally making that tradeoff to avoid the slow down when enforcing a
>>
> 30 nov. 2018, AJ Miles:
>
> Ah, this tool seems very handy. For those curious, I'll paste the results
> below. The index approximately doubles the storage size, but I am
> intentionally making that tradeoff to avoid the slow down when enforcing a
> unique/primary key on the Reference table
11 matches
Mail list logo
