"Sabyasachi Ruj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still fail to understand what should I synchronize on. I am *not* sharing
> sqlite* across multiple threads.
>
If you compile SQLite so that it is threadsafe (-DTHREADSAFE=1) and
if you do not share sqlite3* pointers across threads, then you should
You said that you were sharing Sqlite between threads by opening a
connection in each thread. Sqlite is a single resource and must be
sync'd somehow if it has multiple users.
Complaining about it is like complaining that the sky is blue. It is
blue because of Rayleigh scattering, a
- Make sure you're compiling SQLite with *-DTHREADSAFE=1*.
- Make sure that each thread opens the database file and keeps its own
sqlite structure.
- Make sure you handle the likely possibility that one or more threads
collide when they access the db file at the same time: handle *
I still fail to understand what should I synchronize on. I am *not* sharing
sqlite* across multiple threads.
On 6/18/07, John Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is fundamental computer science, CS101 you might say. Pick up a
textbook on basic computing.
Sabyasachi Ruj wrote:
> But can you
It is fundamental computer science, CS101 you might say. Pick up a
textbook on basic computing.
Sabyasachi Ruj wrote:
But can you tell me where is this documented please?
On 6/18/07, John Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you knew the answer then why did you ask the question? You can
But can you tell me where is this documented please?
On 6/18/07, John Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you knew the answer then why did you ask the question? You can apply
regular CS or look for miracles.
You might be better off using a server based RDBMS like Oracle or
PostgreSQL where
If you knew the answer then why did you ask the question? You can apply
regular CS or look for miracles.
You might be better off using a server based RDBMS like Oracle or
PostgreSQL where the application programmer is insulated from
synchronization issues. Sqlite has the "lite" in its name
But the following link
http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki/wiki?p=MultiThreading
says nothing that I have to synchronize at the application level to create
multiple connections, until the same database connection is being shared!
Ref: The four points in 'Short Answer' section.
BTW: for a DBMS it
Threadsafe only means that threads do not access global data elements or
that they synchronize (serialize) access to global data. It does
nothing to synchronize threads. That is up to the application
programmer. Sqlite uses POSIX file locks for synchronixation but if you
are in a totally
But I think we do not have to take care of synchronizing sqlite access.
sqlite internally does if it is compiled with THREADSAFE=1.
On 6/18/07, John Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The problem is fairly straight forward. Sqlite is a single resource
being shared by multiple thyreads so you
The problem is fairly straight forward. Sqlite is a single resource
being shared by multiple thyreads so you just use fundamental
synchronization logic as you would when sharing any resource between
competing threads.
Sabyasachi Ruj wrote:
Hi,
I am using sqlite in a multithreaded
Hi,
I am using sqlite in a multithreaded environment. I have take
reasonable like not sharing sqlite* handles. I am creating a new sqlite* for
every thread.
Where can we get more info on working with SQLite in a multithreaded
environment?
The application is working as a service in windows.
"Sabyasachi Ruj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> Is there any way to programmatically fix a corrupted sqlite database?
> I am using sqlite version 3.3.8 with C APIs
>
Sometimes VACUUM or REINDEX will help, but usually not.
You can also try to recover using:
sqlite3 OLD.DB .dump | sqlite3
Hi,
Is there any way to programmatically fix a corrupted sqlite database?
I am using sqlite version 3.3.8 with C APIs
--
Sabyasachi
14 matches
Mail list logo
