Re: [sqlite] request for additions to sqlite 3.xx

> What's the objection to reading your SQL source out of the database and > preparing it at program startup? I have no objection to reading the sql on startup as that is what we are currently doing. I just want all data access code inside of the database instead of my source code. Does anyone

RE: [sqlite] SQLite version 3 design question: '500'=500?

Yep. basically our "type less" string fields should have user definable operator overload functions. Sounds like a big change that I doubt DRH would implement anytime soon but it would definitely solve some of these integer/numeric/string/datetime/etc.. conversion/comparisons. We would also have

RE: [sqlite] vers 3.0 concurrency issues

I really like this answer!!! The Goldilocks approach to increased concurrency... Hopefully DRH will read your answer and conclude this would be a good approach as the current take it or leave it answers are no help. Abandoning SQLite COMPLETELY for higher concurrency does not make sense but a

RE: [sqlite] vers 3.0 concurrency issues

Thanx The main reason for file locking is to support win95/98/ME???... I do have a server process running and have embedded sqlite to be used by individual threads that may be started. All writes currently go to one writer thread and this seems to work fine. The application we have developed

[sqlite] vers 3.0 concurrency issues

I would like to use SQLite on a web server or .net remoting and multi-user/threads may become an issue as locking is based at the finest granularity of file locking instead of table/page/row locking. Will this issue be resolved from 3.x onwards so that concurrency can be increased when multiple

RE: [sqlite] MySQL / SQLite

I totally agree... Seems like when users say SQLite is slower than "xyz...", they are using a high level driver based interface instead of using a "c" based driver program to really test what SQLite is doing. I have written tests at the "c" level for both MySQL and SQLite and SQLite is generally

RE: [sqlite] Adding SQL commands

Great...can you tell me if there will be any increased technical specs??? Ver 3.0 will have a 64-bit ROWID, what about: - page size - max table rows - max database size - max blob size - any other tech limitations info... -Original Message- From:

RE: [sqlite] Adding SQL commands

Yes...It would be great if SQLite had control-flow statements and variables just like Transact-SQL(MS/Sybase) as it would allow one to put all the data manipulation into one script and run it like a stored procedure... I do like the fine control that SQLite gives my application but I also think

[sqlite] Adding SQL commands

I would like to add some commands to SQLite to make my SQL(ite) programming life easier!!! The commands are: IF - e.g IF ((select count(*) from foo) = 100) select "good"; ELSE select "bad"; END

RE: [sqlite] A proposal for SQLite version 3.0

The proposal for version 3.0 looks very promising and I hope all the major changes will be implemented. Most of the enhancements seem to add flexibility and scalability to to the "C" based api. This is great as at the "C" api call level you can do anything you want. But I do not see any changes

[sqlite] SQLite 3.0...when???

I have been using SQLite for over a year now and it is an excellent SQL Library. Some more features from SQL92 would surely be welcome while keeping SQLite fast and small. Suggestions for ver 3.0 include: - Full referential integrity by implement check and foreign key constraints