If you could provide more information then maybe someone can suggest a reason
or even a solution for the effect you are seeing. Some of the following may be
helpful.
What schema are you using?
Which journal mode is your database running in?
What kind of statements are executed?
How are you
Hi,
I have two python programs using sqlite3. They function the same,
except the following.
In the first, execute() is called in batches and then commit() is
called following them. In the second, commit() is called after each
execute(). It seems that the second case is faster (I can not separate
"In-process" describes it best for me.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:16 AM Darren Duncan
wrote:
> The concepts I like the best so far are "in-process" or "integrated" or
> something library-themed. -- Darren Duncan
>
> On 2020-01-27 2:18 p.m., Richard Hipp wrote:
> > For many years I have
The concepts I like the best so far are "in-process" or "integrated" or
something library-themed. -- Darren Duncan
On 2020-01-27 2:18 p.m., Richard Hipp wrote:
For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server
> "What is the word for that programming methodology that existed since the
> beginning when there were no threads and everything was single-task?"
Real Mode.
- Deon
> On Jan 28, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Roman Fleysher
> wrote:
>
> What is the word for that programming methodology that existed
On 1/29/2020 12:04 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
Suppose that I have the following command, which writes two entries
with the same key. So the 1st entry will be overwritten by the 2nd
entry. Therefore, there is no need to write the 1st entry. Is sqlite3
smart enough to not to write the 1st entry? Or it
Suppose that I have the following command, which writes two entries
with the same key. So the 1st entry will be overwritten by the 2nd
entry. Therefore, there is no need to write the 1st entry. Is sqlite3
smart enough to not to write the 1st entry? Or it will write both the
1st entry and the 2nd
HiI am using sqLite3 on an embedded system (STM32H743VI) using, freeRTOS,
fatFS and an SD Card using the HAL Drivers and the SDMMC1 interface.The
database works fine with doubles, integers and chars, but as soon as I
attempt to insert a record with a bound text field the step function fails
with
As I understand it, the barrier in that patch ensures that for whichever
thread executes the if(!sqlite3GlobalConfig.mutex.xMutexAlloc codepath)
{...}, the write to pTo->xMutexAlloc will be stored after the rest of the
xMutex* field writes. But there's nothing preventing another thread
*loading*
On 1/28/20, Oystein Eftevaag wrote:
> in sqlite3MutexInit() sqlite3GlobalConfig.mutex.xMutexAlloc
> can be read as being set on a core, while the rest of the initialization
> done in sqlite3MutexInit() still is being read as unset.
Doesn't the memory barrier at
Hi folks,
Data races in sqlite3_initialize was previously reported in
https://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org/msg94225.html
and
a fix landed, however while investigating internal TSan reports of this, as
far as we can tell the issue is still present (on non-x86 platforms
On 28 Jan 2020, at 6:05pm, Roman Fleysher
wrote:
> I would like to ask, why is it so important to indicate that SQLite, in
> reference to threads or client/server, " does not work that way". I think
> this might help to find the words to describe it.
What a great point.
As a (retired)
Dear Richard and SQLiters,
I would like to ask, why is it so important to indicate that SQLite, in
reference to threads or client/server, " does not work that way". I think this
might help to find the words to describe it. Is it because some embedded
systems do not support threads? Is it
My 2ct:
In-stack callable RDBMS.
--
A. J. Millan
> Mensaje original
> De: Richard Hipp Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:20:25 -0800
>
>For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
>to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
>RDBMSes. "Serverless"
Warren Young, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 02:27 PM, wrote...
>
> On Jan 28, 2020, at 9:25 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> >
> > On 1/28/20, Jan Danielsson wrote:
> >> On 2020-01-28 00:19, Richard Hipp wrote:
> >>> daemon-less?
> >>
> >> This is my favorite, the only problem is that it is culturally
On Jan 28, 2020, at 9:25 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> On 1/28/20, Jan Danielsson wrote:
>> On 2020-01-28 00:19, Richard Hipp wrote:
>>> daemon-less?
>>
>> This is my favorite, the only problem is that it is culturally more a
>> Unix-y term.
>
> Since suggesting daemon-less, someone else
BYOT -> Bring Your Own Thread
Put another way: SQLITE is a BYOT Library.
- Deon
-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users On Behalf Of
Richard Hipp
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 2:19 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
For
This is a very important design distinction, not just implementation detail, If
you know and internalize up front that SQLITE will run only on the thread you
give it, you can architect your application better from the beginning and not
e.g. go down one path initially and wonder how the get
The first thing that came to mind was "client-only", though that made me
think of an old saying about lawyers,
He who represents himself has a fool for a client.
... Otherwise "server-free" has a very nice ring to it.
Carl
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Graham Holden wrote:
> Tuesday, January
On Dienstag, 28. Januar 2020 18:26:05 CET Brüns, Stefan wrote:
> On Dienstag, 28. Januar 2020 16:16:01 CET Richard Hipp wrote:
> > On 1/27/20, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I came across a problem during mate test, where fuzzcheck ends with
> > > segfault.
> > > The problem appears
> On Jan 28, 2020, at 3:18 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> Things like MySQL-embedded and H2 run a "server" as a thread instead
> of as a separate process. ... So this is really the
> same thing as a server using IPC except that the server runs in the
> same address space as the client.
I see
On Dienstag, 28. Januar 2020 16:16:01 CET Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 1/27/20, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I came across a problem during mate test, where fuzzcheck ends with
> > segfault.
> > The problem appears to be only on [s390x]. Other architectures are
> > working fine.
>
> Fixed by
Tuesday, January 28, 2020, 4:25:49 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> Since suggesting daemon-less, someone else (I'll have to research who,
> exactly) suggested "server-free", which I think I like more.
What? A free server with every copy of SQLite?
That sounds like a good deal :-)
Graham
On 1/28/20, Jan Danielsson wrote:
> On 2020-01-28 00:19, Richard Hipp wrote:
>> daemon-less?
>
>This is my favorite, the only problem is that it is culturally more a
> Unix-y term.
Since suggesting daemon-less, someone else (I'll have to research who,
exactly) suggested "server-free", which
On 2020-01-28 00:19, Richard Hipp wrote:
> daemon-less?
This is my favorite, the only problem is that it is culturally more a
Unix-y term.
But there are plenty of other good suggestions from this thread.
- embedded
- self-contained
- in-process
- integrated
- connectionless
On 1/27/20, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I came across a problem during mate test, where fuzzcheck ends with
> segfault.
> The problem appears to be only on [s390x]. Other architectures are
> working fine.
Fixed by check-in https://www.sqlite.org/src/info/04885763c4cd00cb
Thanks for the
I think of it as direct access, though I could see people confusing that with
Windows Server DirectAccess.
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
I like the slightly opaque "compact".
A
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 13:31, Donald Shepherd wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 12:26 am, Jose Isaias Cabrera
> wrote:
>
> >
> > R Smith, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 06:39 AM, wrote...
> > >
> > > I do not have a great suggestion to add, but to observe
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 12:26 am, Jose Isaias Cabrera
wrote:
>
> R Smith, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 06:39 AM, wrote...
> >
> > I do not have a great suggestion to add, but to observe that the best
> > suggestions I think are: NOT changing, (or if we have to) "Server-Free"
> > or "Localized".
>
R Smith, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 06:39 AM, wrote...
>
> I do not have a great suggestion to add, but to observe that the best
> suggestions I think are: NOT changing, (or if we have to) "Server-Free"
> or "Localized".
I agree with these, but localize is another buzz word for translation.
Warren Young, on Monday, January 27, 2020 07:36 PM, wrote...
>
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> >
> > "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me.”
>
> “Serverless” it a screwy buzzword anyway, because of course
As R Smith pointed out, you already have a good description in your
existing documentation: "SQLite is a self-contained, server-free,
zero-configuration ... "
I would also throw in the term "library", because it is what it is. Sqlite
is just non-executable code that doesn't function on it's own.
On Tue, 2020-01-28 at 10:11 +1100, John McMahon wrote:
> Define what "serverless" means to you in the SQLite context and provide
> a link or pop-up to that definition wherever "serverless" occurs in the
> documentation. Perhaps also include what it doesn't mean if you think
> this is becoming an
I do not have a great suggestion to add, but to observe that the best
suggestions I think are: NOT changing, (or if we have to) "Server-Free"
or "Localized".
Especially when you consider the statement at the top of typical SQLite
docs might read:
"SQLite is a self-contained, server-free,
On 1/28/20, Howard Chu wrote:
>
> Wait, really? AFAICS embedded means in-process, no IPC required to operate.
>
Things like MySQL-embedded and H2 run a "server" as a thread instead
of as a separate process. Clients then use Inter-Thread Communication
rather than Inter-Process Communication to
stack-capturing
It captures the stack of the host.
stack-dependent
pointer-based
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Rowan Worth wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 06:19, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
>> Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
>> "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
>> running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
>>
Perhaps "server" is not the right emphasis? Maybe it is the client? Thus,
"clientless"? This means that each SQlite session serves itself.
Self-sufficient.
Roman
From: sqlite-users on behalf of
Richard Hipp
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 5:18 PM
To: General
in-process ?
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:19 AM Richard Hipp wrote:
> daemon-less?
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> d...@sqlite.org
> ___
> sqlite-users mailing list
> sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
>
Hi
How about recursive one like GNU?
Say, "SQLiteS/TL" exapanding to "Sqlite is Server Less/Thread Less"
Nataraj S Narayan
Richard Hipp writes:
> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
>
Hello Richard !
I'm still getting this error:
fossil clone http://www3.sqlite.org/cgi/src sqlite.fossil
server says: 500 Server Malfunction
Clone done, sent: 256 received: 217 ip: 64.225.41.2
server returned an error - clone aborted
Cheers !
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 16:13 Cory Nelson wrote:
> in-situ
>
> I think this distinguishes sqlite as being different from an "in-proc yet
> separate server".
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:19 PM Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> > to
in-situ
I think this distinguishes sqlite as being different from an "in-proc yet
separate server".
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:19 PM Richard Hipp wrote:
> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:19 PM Richard Hipp wrote:
> How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of
> "serverless" to mean "without a server"?
Don't. I'm with Warren, Jens, Stephen on this one.
Keep it, but make a new sqlite.org/serverless doc page,
and link to it when you
44 matches
Mail list logo
