ill look more into the WAL-system when I get some time. If
someone know for sure what I'm planning to do will crash and burn, I will
appriciate a heads-up on why.
Fredrik
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:42 AM Simon Slavin wrote:
> On 7 Oct 2019, at 10:34am, Fredrik Larsen wrote:
>
> >
n, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:16 AM Simon Slavin wrote:
> On 7 Oct 2019, at 9:56am, Fredrik Larsen wrote:
>
> > nowhere does it warn about severe regression with
> > unbounded WAL-size [snip]
>
> There are tons of bad stuff the documentation doesn't warn you about. You
> migh
sable checkpointing?
>
> --
> The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says
> a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: sqlite-users On
> >Behalf Of Fredrik Larsen
> >Sent: Friday, 4 October, 2019
, simplifying backups and the effect of data-corrupting errors.
Fredrik
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:44 PM Simon Slavin wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2019, at 12:17pm, Fredrik Larsen wrote:
>
> > A copy-on-write IO-path where data is split into static and dynamic
> parts (think snapshots for
else had explored this path. From
the feedback so far it seems not.
Fredrik
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:23 PM test user
wrote:
> Hello Fredrik,
>
> Why does it need to be part of a VFS instead of using a file system with
> COW like ZFS?
>
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 12:18, Fre
Hi
A copy-on-write IO-path where data is split into static and dynamic parts
(think snapshots for storage) would be very helpful for our project, . This
would simplify backups, testing, moving data around in a multinode
environment, etc.
Does something like this exist for sqlite? In my head this
I have run analyze on production data, that should work better, right? Or
do you propose to "trick" the query-planner using some kind of staging-data?
Anyway, I use INDEXED BY hints now, and this solves my problem.
Fredrik
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 8:57 PM Simon Slavin wrote:
> When trying to
queries are below 10ms on fairly big data-sets, from 1-2
seconds. That is an improvement of several orders of magnitude :)
Fredrik
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 8:49 PM Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 1 October, 2019 11:58, Fredrik Larsen
> wrote:
>
> >Thanks Keith! I have
the indexing system would
be better. But when the SQL-translation works as expected, it is nice to
have sql available as a tool for general reporting.
Fredrik
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 8:05 PM Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 10/1/19, Fredrik Larsen wrote:
> >
> > The declarative model
Thanks Keith! I have spent several days trying to tune my query towards
expected performance, without luck. I somehow missed your fairly straight
forward solution. I still have some problems making sqlite use the correct
indexes, but this can at least be fixed by well-placed INDEXED-BY-hints.
The
Consider query below;
SELECT key
FROM t1
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT key,max(rev),data
FROM t2
WHERE rev < ?
GROUP BY key
) USING (key)
ORDER BY key ?
LIMIT ?
In above query sqlite will materialize the t2-sub-query and then start
working on the outer query. I have a lot of data in t2 so this will
Good to know that I was not to far off target then. But fixing issues in
less than a day of reporting? On a Saturday? Who does that? I was planning
to feel happy about solving this issue.. :)
Fredrik
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:31 PM Dan Kennedy wrote:
>
> On 22/9/62 02:25, Fredrik Larsen
something :)
Fredrik
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 8:49 PM Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
> See Dan's checkin on trunk for this issue.
>
> https://www.sqlite.org/src/info/20f7951bb238ddc0
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: sqlite-users On
> >Behalf Of Fredrik Larse
red to
stop SQLite from assuming to much about GROUP-BY queries.
Fredrik
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 4:12 PM Fredrik Larsen wrote:
> Your last sentence got me thinking. So I downloaded the source, modified
> the ordering of the GROUP-BY expression to match ORDER-BY and it works!
> This will of
Your last sentence got me thinking. So I downloaded the source, modified
the ordering of the GROUP-BY expression to match ORDER-BY and it works!
This will offcourse only work if the GROUP-BY and ORDER-BY matches
generally expect for the direction. This fix only improves performance for
relevant
M R Smith wrote:
> On 2019/09/20 2:49 PM, Fredrik Larsen wrote:
> > Hi Ryan
> >
> > Nobody is proposing that QP should automagically add an index, I'm only
> > asking why the QP does not use already added index, that is specially
> added
> > for this specific case. I
Hi Ryan
Nobody is proposing that QP should automagically add an index, I'm only
asking why the QP does not use already added index, that is specially added
for this specific case. I don't thinks this is a very "obscurest of
use-case" or to much to ask for, in fact, this is the expected behavior
gt; -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org]
> Im Auftrag von Fredrik Larsen
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 14:14
> An: sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
> Betreff: [EXTERNAL] [sqlite] Group-by and order
/questions/58009898/sqlite-group-by-with-sort-by-desc-does-not-work-as-expected
Fredrik Larsen
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
19 matches
Mail list logo
