Re: [sqlite] alternative to UNIQUE CONSTRAINT

Pavel Ivanov writes: [...] > You should say at this point "That has to be an error in > OpenOffice", go find some OpenOffice bug tracker or OpenOffice-related > discussion list and bring this issue to their attention. [...] all people interested in solving this bug will find a

[sqlite] Table with corrupted indices returning incorrect results (sample attached)

Hello, Customers using our Sqlite based application have reported some anomolies. It appears that the indices for the table have become corrupted somehow. I've attached a sample database which exhibits the issue. Can anyone offer some insight into how the table could have got into this state?

Re: [sqlite] Slow query

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Pavel Ivanov wrote: > > The query return the apropiate values as always the id -> id2 relation is > > the same and id -> name and id2 -> name2. > > So your id maps uniquely to id2, name and name2. But what about year? > What value of year do

Re: [sqlite] Slow query

> The year can also be different but Im interested only in the latest year. I > use the GROUP because I want unique id and if I add year in GROUP BY I can > get it repeated. If you're interested in the latest year then your query is totally wrong because it returns random year. If you saw what

Re: [sqlite] create table {table-name} as select.... table definition is imperfectly cloned

Puneet, I am simply pointing out a potential pitfall. Putting up a highway sign that says "Soft Shoulder" is one way to go about things. Widening the shoulder and perhaps paving it is another. Regards Tim Romano Swarthmore PA On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:56 AM, P Kishor

Re: [sqlite] create table {table-name} as select.... table definition is imperfectly cloned

Jay, Let me try to "scratch on the wall" one more time and perhaps my point will make its way through. Notwithstanding your insistence that INT and INTEGER are the same in SQLite, *with respect to use in the PRIMARY KEY definition* there are subtle differences. In the authoritative version of

Re: [sqlite] create table {table-name} as select.... table definition is imperfectly cloned

On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 09:04 -0400, Tim Romano wrote: > > The EXAMPLE: If you create a database in the authoritative version of SQLite > using INT PRIMARY KEY (rather than INTEGER PRIMARY KEY), when you share the > database with your Adobe-using affiliate, all hell will break loose. I will >

Re: [sqlite] Slow query

If your table doesn't have a primary key, this look like your table aren't normalized, maybe you can try broke this table in 2 tables like: Your definition: CREATE TABLE table1(id INTEGER, name VARCHAR, id2 INTEGER, name2 VARCHAR, year INTEGER); indexes : index1( name ), index2( id2 ),

Re: [sqlite] Accessing an sqlite db from two different programs

to not block all users with updates. On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Greg Burd wrote: > Why "the smallest update possible"? > > -grge > > > -Original Message- > > From: Sylvain Pointeau [mailto:sylvain.point...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 6:36 PM >

Re: [sqlite] create table {table-name} as select.... table definition is imperfectly cloned

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:04:14AM -0400, Tim Romano scratched on the wall: > Notwithstanding your insistence that INT and INTEGER are the same in SQLite, > *with respect to use in the PRIMARY KEY definition* there are subtle > differences. Yes. However, CREATE TABLE ... AS SELECT doesn't

[sqlite] minor website bug (was Re: SQLite 3.7.0 coming soon....)

> Please provide feedback - positive, negative, or indifferent - to this > mailing list. Minor: the link in about.html from "fopen()" to http://man.he.net/man3/fopen is broken. Eric -- Eric A. Smith Mandelbug, n.: A bug whose underlying causes are so complex and obscure as to make

Re: [sqlite] SQLite 3.7.0 coming soon....

This looks like an exciting enhancement, and I look forward to testing it out. http://www.sqlite.org/draft/c3ref/io_methods.html seems to be missing requirements for the xShm functions, though. Can you update that? Thanks, Peter Kolbus On Jun 30, 2010, at 12:21 PM, "D. Richard Hipp"

Re: [sqlite] SQLite 3.7.0 coming soon....

For what it's worth, I've just tested Libgda with the latest dev. version of the 3.7.0 and found no problem at all with the NR tests (note that Libgda uses a lot the virtual tables features). Thanks a lot for your very good work in SQlite! Regards, Vivien On 30 June 2010 19:21, D. Richard Hipp

Re: [sqlite] [sqlite-dev] SQLite 3.7.0 coming soon....

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:21 PM, D. Richard Hipp wrote: > We are in the final phases of development for SQLite version 3.7.0. > The key enhancement over version 3.6.23.1 is support for the use of > write-ahead logs for transaction control.  See >

[sqlite] PRIMARY KEY - not unique?

Hi all, not sure if this is a bug or user error - any insight appreciated! I have a schema that defines a two column primary key on a table - the docs indicate this will create a unique composite key. However, code running "INSERT OR REPLACE INTO ..." many times over a long period of time

[sqlite] fts3 column-specific phrase search?

I find myself wanting to do an FTS3 phrase search restricted to content in a specific column. The docs are pretty clear that this doesn't work (column prefixes only apply to tokens), but I wonder how hard it would be to make it work. I'm happy to work on it if I can be pointed in the right