Re: [sqlite] Shared Memory Question

> This is likely a naive response, but on Linux have you thought >using /dev/shm? It's a tmpfs ramdisk that is needed by POSIX shared memory >calls shm_open and shm_unlink in glibc 2.2 and above. It grows and shrinks as >required and uses almost no memory if it's never populated with files. >

RE: [sqlite] Shared Memory Question

Glenn, I certainly would, but sadly this is for Win32 too. Cheers, Steve -Original Message- From: Glenn McAllister [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 February 2006 16:45 To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org Subject: Re: [sqlite] Shared Memory Question This is likely a naive response, but on

Re: [sqlite] Shared Memory Question

This is likely a naive response, but on Linux have you thought using /dev/shm? It's a tmpfs ramdisk that is needed by POSIX shared memory calls shm_open and shm_unlink in glibc 2.2 and above. It grows and shrinks as required and uses almost no memory if it's never populated with files. As a

Re: [sqlite] Shared Memory Question

Hello, We are currently looking at this very issue ourselves. I just put in an enhancement request... http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/tktview?tn=1679 For allowing the runtime replacement of memory functions by using function pointers instead of C mallocs. We could then replace SQLite's allocators

Re: [sqlite] Shared Memory Question

"Drew, Stephen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Presumably, the in-memory database is in contiguous memory Sorry, that is not the case. > as I guess > the format is the same as the disk-based database format. Would it be a > lot of work to be able to construct an in-memory database with a c

RE: [sqlite] Shared Memory Question

Sorry, just noticed this is very similar Mateus' email from earlier, so will wait for any responses to that... -Original Message- From: Drew, Stephen Sent: 15 February 2006 15:33 To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org Subject: [sqlite] Shared Memory Question Hello all, An interesting use o

[sqlite] Shared Memory Question

Hello all, An interesting use of the in-memory SQLite database would be to use it in shared memory and have the data shared between applications but stored once. The background to this is I am making local replicated copies of a main database, and as they are transient (they are read-only copi