Re: [sqlite] Update trigger fires for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0

> > > Then why do you keep hammering on the idea that SQLite is somehow > incorrect or wrong? > > You've explained what you're trying to do. We've explained there is > a better way to do that, that also happens to provide the correct > answer on all platforms, AND likely runs faster--

Re: [sqlite] Update trigger fires for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0

On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 03:21:57PM +0200, Paul van Helden scratched on the wall: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Black, Michael (IS) > wrote: > > > And Oracle says the opposite: > > > > Yet they all give the same answer when done with "update testtable set > >

Re: [sqlite] Update trigger fires for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Jay A. Kreibich wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 02:43:29PM +0200, Paul van Helden scratched on the > wall: > >> > The statement "UPDATE table SET column=NULL" updates every row in the >> > table. The fact that some rows may already have a

Re: [sqlite] Update trigger fires for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0

On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 02:43:29PM +0200, Paul van Helden scratched on the wall: > > The statement "UPDATE table SET column=NULL" updates every row in the > > table. The fact that some rows may already have a NULL in that > > column is not important. > > > > Well, it is important to me,

Re: [sqlite] Update trigger fires for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Paul van Helden wrote: >> So rather than holding your breath for Oracle to change I'd recommend you >> do it the portable way. >> > I'm not waiting for anything. My last question was simple: which is > better? Since MySQL does it the "correct

Re: [sqlite] Update trigger fires for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Black, Michael (IS) wrote: > And Oracle says the opposite: > > Yet they all give the same answer when done with "update testtable set > testrow=null where testrow not null; > > You keep hammering this one, it is obvious, I understand,

Re: [sqlite] Update trigger fires for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0

p...@planetgis.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 7:47 AM To: j...@kreibi.ch; General Discussion of SQLite Database Subject: EXT :Re: [sqlite] Update trigger fires for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0 On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Paul van Helden <p...@planetgis.co.za>wrote: &g

Re: [sqlite] Update trigger fires for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Black, Michael (IS) wrote: > What's better is that it tells you what you asked for...not what you think > you asked for...which it does. > I asked for changes :-) > > You've already been shown the correct solution...a WHERE clause... > >

Re: [sqlite] Update trigger fires for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Paul van Helden wrote: > >> The statement "UPDATE table SET column=NULL" updates every row in the >> table. The fact that some rows may already have a NULL in that >> column is not important. >> >> Well, it is important to me, the word

Re: [sqlite] Update trigger fires for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0

for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0 You are right, sorry, just checked. sqlite3_changes returns number of records hit, not changed. Have been using sqlite for 2 years now and was always under the impression this was for actual changes. But which is better behaviour, reporting "row

Re: [sqlite] Update trigger fires for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0

> > > The statement "UPDATE table SET column=NULL" updates every row in the > table. The fact that some rows may already have a NULL in that > column is not important. > > Well, it is important to me, the word "change" means before != after :-)

Re: [sqlite] Update trigger fires for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0

You are right, sorry, just checked. sqlite3_changes returns number of records hit, not changed. Have been using sqlite for 2 years now and was always under the impression this was for actual changes. But which is better behaviour, reporting "row hits" versus real changes? Especially when it comes

Re: [sqlite] Update trigger fires for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0

On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 01:32:14PM +0200, Paul van Helden scratched on the wall: > Hi, > > Is this correct? Should update triggers not only fire for actual changes? I > have a large table with a column which contains all NULL values except for > 4. I expected an UPDATE table SET column=NULL to

Re: [sqlite] Update trigger fires for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0

Paul van Helden wrote: > Is this correct? Should update triggers not only fire for actual changes? I > have a large table with a column which contains all NULL values except for > 4. I expected an UPDATE table SET column=NULL to only fire 4 triggers, > except it fires for every row. I'm pretty

[sqlite] Update trigger fires for all rows even if sqlite3_changes returns 0

Hi, Is this correct? Should update triggers not only fire for actual changes? I have a large table with a column which contains all NULL values except for 4. I expected an UPDATE table SET column=NULL to only fire 4 triggers, except it fires for every row. Thanks, Paul.