On Sunday, January 12, 2020, Roman Fleysher
wrote:
>
> I use SQLite over GPFS , but in DELETE (which I think is the default)
> mode. Not WAL mode. No issues with locking, except performance when
> accessing concurrently from multiple nodes. As others pointed out, this has
> to do with the
On 2020/01/16 12:47 am, Simon Slavin wrote:
On 15 Jan 2020, at 9:44pm, Justin Gielski wrote:
*"database is locked release restore point sqlite"*
If there's nothing in your code that caused that to happen, then I would
suspect a transient hardware glitch. Does your code use SAVEPOINTs ?
On 15 Jan 2020, at 9:44pm, Justin Gielski wrote:
> *"database is locked release restore point sqlite"*
If there's nothing in your code that caused that to happen, then I would
suspect a transient hardware glitch. Does your code use SAVEPOINTs ?
> The database locking mode is set to NORMAL
Good Afternoon
I wanted to pass along a really strange issue we just ran into in with one
of our products. We have a simple table with an INTEGER column set with a
NOT NULL DEFAULT 0 constraint.
We have no clue how it happened, but some how a null value was successfully
inserted into this column
What did you define SQLITE_MAX_ATTACHED as when you compiled the DLL? The
default limit is 10. You can dynamically decrease the limit to be less than
the compile time limit, but you cannot increase it beyond the maximum set when
you compiled the library.
https://sqlite.org/limits.html
11.
Hello,
I'm attempting to use the new SetLimitOption added to the 1.0.112 version of
System.Data.SQLite.dll. Either I'm not using this function correctly or there
is a problem within the dll. Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated.
private void Button_Click (object sender,
Thank you Keith for the detail explanation.
I misunderstood the 2 replies were opposite but this is not the case.
Thank you again
Jean-bapstiste
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
On Wednesday, 15 January, 2020 02:06, Jean-Baptiste Gardette
wrote:
> Just to be sure, is it unsafe to write a non agregate SELECT with GROUP
> BY and HAVING clauses (without sub-SELECT) for the sole prupose
> explained before (even if the approache is discutable) ?
Presently, yes it is.
>I
On 2020/01/15 1:24 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
On 1/15/20, Dominique Devienne wrote:
I like Lua's way to graphically visualize releases at
https://www.lua.org/versions.html
Please send javascript that will generate such a graph, either as SVG
or as an HTML Canvas.
(1) For improved display on
David Raymond wrote:
> My brain started yelling that that needed a "limit 1" on the subquery so that
> it would only return 1 row.
>
> How is that handled by other databases?
SQL-92 says:
| 6.11
|
| General Rules
|
| 2) If a is a and the
| result of the is empty, then the result
On 1/15/20, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> I like Lua's way to graphically visualize releases at
> https://www.lua.org/versions.html
>
> Makes it very easy to get a sense of the frequency. Any chance SQLite
> would do that, perhaps with "major" (excluding the leading 3.)
> releases on one side, and
Just to be sure, is it unsafe to write a non agregate SELECT with GROUP
BY and HAVING clauses (without sub-SELECT)
for the sole prupose explained before (even if the approache is
discutable) ?
I understand 2 different answers here :
- "No, this kind of query can't be rewritten by the
I like Lua's way to graphically visualize releases at
https://www.lua.org/versions.html
Makes it very easy to get a sense of the frequency. Any chance SQLite
would do that, perhaps with "major" (excluding the leading 3.)
releases on one side, and minor ones on the other?
It's been a quarter
13 matches
Mail list logo
