Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

, DRH already commented on that. > > - Original Message - > From: "D. Richard Hipp" <d...@hwaci.com> > To: "General Discussion of SQLite Database" <sqlite-users@sqlite.org> > Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 8:05 AM > Subject: Re: [sqlite] Pr

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

From: "D. Richard Hipp" <d...@hwaci.com> To: "General Discussion of SQLite Database" <sqlite-users@sqlite.org> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 8:05 AM Subject: Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3 > > On Sep 3, 2009, at 10:43 AM

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

On Sep 3, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Rod Dav4is wrote: >*re applied affinity:* If that is what is meant, then the document > should say it, instead of leaving it to the reader's imagination. >Since column typing was superfluous in version2, it seems that the > version3 adoption of typing, as

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

Whoa! All I did was report two problems that I encountered when upgrading from version2 to version3! I was told that my problems were not problems at all; In fact one of them was a feature! That sounds kinda arrogant to me. As far as freezing the language, I made no such statement or

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

*re applied affinity:* If that is what is meant, then the document should say it, instead of leaving it to the reader's imagination. Since column typing was superfluous in version2, it seems that the version3 adoption of typing, as defined, would perhaps be an upgrade compatibility

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

Umm, At 05:16 03/09/2009, you wrote: ´¯¯¯ >Thanks for reminding me: A thing's value is generally proportional to >its cost. And the attitude of its support team figures in there, too. >-R. > > >> Whether _you_ consider them problems or not, they were certainly > >> problems for me, migrating a

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

> Yes, I know how it works. But that seems to contradict the > documentation. The first field of the record inserted should have a type > of numeric, as types are associated with the data not with the column > declaration. So the phrase Where n = '1' should fall into the first > bullet case Rod,

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

Pavel Ivanov wrote: >> Perhaps the fact that my column definitions declared no >> typing has an effect here? >> > > Yes, that means that your columns have no affinity, all data stored in > it as you give and no conversions done during insertions and > comparisons: > > sqlite> create table t

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

Pavel Ivanov wrote: >> 2. *re integer vs string:* Version 3 differs from version 2 here. >> Version 2 was declared to be typeless and "Select Where column = >> 1" behaved identically with "Select Where column = '1'". Version >> 3 behavior is different in that the two previous

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

> Perhaps the fact that my column definitions declared no > typing has an effect here? Yes, that means that your columns have no affinity, all data stored in it as you give and no conversions done during insertions and comparisons: sqlite> create table t (n, t); sqlite> insert into t values (1,

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

Pavel Ivanov wrote: 2. *Quotes in SELECT*: Specification of Field='3' failed to find hits; Field=3 (i.e. without quotes) was required. >> This is a feature, not a bug. SQLite 3.x distinguishes between >> integers and strings and does not consider them equal to one

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

>>> 2. *Quotes in SELECT*: Specification of Field='3' failed to find >>> hits; Field=3 (i.e. without quotes) was required. > > This is a feature, not a bug. SQLite 3.x distinguishes between > integers and strings and does not consider them equal to one another. > You might have some rows

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

> 2. *re integer vs string:* Version 3 differs from version 2 here. > Version 2 was declared to be typeless and "Select Where column = > 1" behaved identically with "Select Where column = '1'". Version > 3 behavior is different in that the two previous examples produce >

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

1. *re OID vs ROWID:* I don't understand your statement that the "name" of a result column is undefined. The documentation clearly states "A column name can be any of the names defined in the CREATE TABLE statement or one of the following special identifiers:

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

Rod Dav4is wrote: > Thanks for reminding me: A thing's value is generally proportional to > its cost. And the attitude of its support team figures in there, too. > -R. There is only one person with attitude I see here, and it is not Dr. Hipp and it is not P. Kishor. I have never seen a

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

Thanks for reminding me: A thing's value is generally proportional to its cost. And the attitude of its support team figures in there, too. -R. P Kishor wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Rod Dav4is wrote: > >> Whether _you_ consider them problems or not, they were

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Rod Dav4is wrote: > Whether _you_ consider them problems or not, they were certainly > problems for me, migrating a working application to version 3 and having > it fall over in subtle ways because of these undocumented two vs three > differences.

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

Whether _you_ consider them problems or not, they were certainly problems for me, migrating a working application to version 3 and having it fall over in subtle ways because of these undocumented two vs three differences. They cost me several hours of unnecessary analysis time. D. Richard Hipp

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

On Sep 1, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Rod Dav4is wrote: > Aren't these problems considered worth fixing ? I do not consider them to be problems. > > Rod Dav4is wrote: >> 1. *OID vs ROWID*: Specification of the OID field name (in >> SELECT) >> did not set Rexx variables X.OID.n, but instead

Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

Aren't these problems considered worth fixing ? Rod Dav4is wrote: >1. *OID vs ROWID*: Specification of the OID field name (in SELECT) > did not set Rexx variables X.OID.n, but instead set variables > x.ROWID.n >2. *Quotes in SELECT*: Specification of Field='3' failed to find

[sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3

1. *OID vs ROWID*: Specification of the OID field name (in SELECT) did not set Rexx variables X.OID.n, but instead set variables x.ROWID.n 2. *Quotes in SELECT*: Specification of Field='3' failed to find hits; Field=3 (i.e. without quotes) was required. -- Regards, Rod