[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
COUNT(*) returns NULL if there are no records selected. Change the query
like
this to accomplish what you're looking for:
SELECT COALESCE(COUNT(*), 0)
FROM drzewo_towar
WHERE lft > 13
AND rgt < 14
GROUP BY towar;
Thanks! But it's a bit strange - if I r
There are also pragmas to control page size and in-memory caching.
You will want to play with those, as well. If SQLite is in the
middle of a transaction and you load it up with commands, it will
create a journal file in /tmp/ to start pages that don't fit in the
in-memory page cache (or some
Hello!
I am new to SQL and have a simple question concerning sqlite. I am using the
functions sqlite3_open, sqlite3_get_table and sqlite3_free_table and
sqlite3_close.
Because i do not yet know how to check whether a database exists or not, i
always call the sqlite3_get_table function. If it r
In this specific case, examining your original data, there will be no
records that match your selection criteria. Normally, one would expect
a single record to be returned with a single column that contains a
zero value. Using the GROUP BY changes this, and the query will attempt
to return one
To determine whether a specific database exists, check to see if the
file exists before calling sqlite3_open(), using stat() or some other
call.
To determine if a specific schema exists within an open database, use
the query "SEELCT COUNT(*) FROM sqlite_master WHERE type = 'table' AND
name IN
Jeremy Hinegardner wrote:
> ./sqlite_insert 10 5
10 inserts to /tmp/a.db in 0.671 s = 149057.52 inserts/s
./sqlite_insert 200 2
200 inserts to /tmp/a.db in 14.437 s = 138535.38 inserts/s
./sqlite_insert 200 5
200 inserts to /tmp/a.db in 15.322 s = 130530.52 i
On Apr 9, 2005 12:43 AM, Andy Lutomirski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Al Danial wrote:
> > The attached C program measures insert performance for populating
> > a table with an integer and three random floating point values with
> > user defined transaction size. Usage is:
> >
> > ./sqlite_ins
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 11:49:17AM -0400, Al Danial wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who posted performance numbers and machine
> setup info. Some results were counterintuitive (I'd have guessed
> SCSI drives would come out on top) but many variables are at work
It is basically impossible that a 10k
Andrew Piskorski wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 11:49:17AM -0400, Al Danial wrote:
Thanks to everyone who posted performance numbers and machine
setup info. Some results were counterintuitive (I'd have guessed
SCSI drives would come out on top) but many variables are at work
It is basically imp
Ken & Deb Allen wrote:
Using the GROUP BY changes this, and the query will attempt to
return one record for each "towar" value that matches the selection
criteria; since there are none, no records are returned. When using a
COUNT(*) and a GROUP BY together, one normally includes the GROUP BY
co
On Apr 9, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Al Danial wrote:
I did try
SYNCHRONOUS=off but that didn't seem to have an effect; I'll
study the docs to make sure I've got it right.
This isn't surprising.
fsync() is largely a no-op on just about any operating system. It
doesn't actually guarantee that the bytes ar
11 matches
Mail list logo
