Bob Dankert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have been pondering an issue for a while regarding the separation of
query conditions from the join condition and the where condition of
the query. All I have been able to find on this matter is general
text "use the ON clause for conditions that specify
I have been pondering an issue for a while regarding the separation of
query conditions from the join condition and the where condition of the
query. All I have been able to find on this matter is general text "use
the ON clause for conditions that specify how to join tables, and the
WHERE clause
Eduardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 19:42 14/06/2006, you wrote:
> >On Jun 14, 2006, at 16:42 UTC, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Might go a lot faster if you put a "+" in fron of
> > > recID. Like this:
> > >
> > >SELECT * FROM table WHERE +recID IN (...) ORDER BY dateFld
> >
> >What
At 19:42 14/06/2006, you wrote:
On Jun 14, 2006, at 16:42 UTC, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Might go a lot faster if you put a "+" in fron of
> recID. Like this:
>
>SELECT * FROM table WHERE +recID IN (...) ORDER BY dateFld
What magic is this? I checked both lang_expr.html and
> SQLite seeks to keep its database file size minimized.
> I think that SQLite should by default continue to follow
> its current strategy of minimizing file size. But I
> am not adverse to adding a PRAGMA that will put the
> database into a different "preallocation" mode where
> the
On Jun 14, 2006, at 16:42 UTC, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Might go a lot faster if you put a "+" in fron of
> recID. Like this:
>
>SELECT * FROM table WHERE +recID IN (...) ORDER BY dateFld
What magic is this? I checked both lang_expr.html and lang_select.html but
can't find any such
On Jun 14, 2006, at 16:34 UTC, Eduardo wrote:
> >I need to select a large set of records out of a table, sort them by
> >one column, and then get just a subset of the sorted list. (For
> >example, I might want records 40-60 ordered by date, which is a
> >completely different set than records
* Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-14 18:50]:
> * Jay Sprenkle:
> > On 6/14/06, RohitPatel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Any solution to that (which does not force end-user of app
> >> to manage sqlite file fragments or to defragment disk) ?
> >
> > A scheduled task or cron job is
* Jay Sprenkle:
> On 6/14/06, RohitPatel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Any solution to that (which does not force end-user of app to manage sqlite
>> file fragments or to defragment disk) ?
>
> A scheduled task or cron job is trivial to implement and does not
> add any extra work for the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> SELECT FROM WHERE recID IN () ORDER BY dateFld
>
Might go a lot faster if you put a "+" in fron of
recID. Like this:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE +recID IN (...) ORDER BY dateFld
Whether or not this is faster depends on what fraction of
redIDs actually match
At 17:56 14/06/2006, you wrote:
I'm finding that ORDER BY is surprisingly slow, and it makes me
wonder if I'm doing something wrong. Here's the situation:
I need to select a large set of records out of a table, sort them by
one column, and then get just a subset of the sorted list. (For
On Jun 14, 2006, at 16:16 UTC, Paul Smith wrote:
> > SELECT FROM WHERE recID IN ( ORDER BY dateFld
> >
> >I have a unique index on recID, and an index on dateFld.
>
> Try making another index on both fields at once. SQLite can only use one
> index at a time for each query.
Aha, that's
On Jun 14, 2006, at 16:15 UTC, Igor Tandetnik wrote:
> > SELECT FROM WHERE recID IN () ORDER BY
> > dateFld
>
> Why not just
>
> select from order by dateFld;
>
> ?
Because that gets me all records. I only want those in my list of record IDs
(which comes from another source, outside the
On Jun 14, 2006, at 16:06 UTC, Marco Bambini wrote:
> Have you tried to create an indexed?
Yes, I mentioned that both recID and dateFld are indexed.
> Have you tried to analyze your query with SQLiteManager in order to
> see which indexes are used?
No, I didn't know about that. Thanks for
At 16:56 14/06/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm finding that ORDER BY is surprisingly slow, and it makes me wonder if
I'm doing something wrong. Here's the situation:
I need to select a large set of records out of a table, sort them by one
column, and then get just a subset of the sorted
joe-QzMH92Wc/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm finding that ORDER BY is surprisingly slow, and it makes me
wonder if I'm doing something wrong. Here's the situation:
I need to select a large set of records out of a table, sort them by
one column, and then get just a subset of the sorted list. (For
Have you tried to create an indexed?
Have you tried to analyze your query with SQLiteManager in order to
see which indexes are used?
---
Marco Bambini
http://www.sqlabs.net
http://www.sqlabs.net/blog/
On Jun 14, 2006, at 5:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm finding that ORDER BY is
John Stanton uttered:
Jay Sprenkle wrote:
On 6/14/06, RohitPatel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any solution to that (which does not force end-user of app to manage
sqlite
file fragments or to defragment disk) ?
A scheduled task or cron job is trivial to implement and does not
add any
I'm finding that ORDER BY is surprisingly slow, and it makes me wonder if I'm
doing something wrong. Here's the situation:
I need to select a large set of records out of a table, sort them by one
column, and then get just a subset of the sorted list. (For example, I might
want records 40-60
Le 14 juin 06 à 18:33, Eduardo a écrit :
At 04:56 14/06/2006, you wrote:
Hello,
I have a database.
I want to add a table with columns
id integer
name varchar
addresse varchar
...
Which instructions (exactly) I have to give.
Check this page
Ralf Junker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >sqlite_master is it. there are no others.
>
> How about sqlite_temp_master? Or database.sqlite_master for connected
> databases?
>
OK. Them too.
--
D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 04:56 14/06/2006, you wrote:
Hello,
I have a database.
I want to add a table with columns
id integer
name varchar
addresse varchar
...
Which instructions (exactly) I have to give.
Check this page http://www.sqlite.org/sqlite.html , there are the
basic SQL
At 16:43 13/06/2006, you wrote:
Hi SQLiteUsers
After using such application, all used SQLite DB files gets fragmented.
How to avoid such fragmentation ?
I'm not sure, but vacuum will create a new file, so perhaps this file
will be less fragmented then previous one. Or create a new
Jay Sprenkle wrote:
On 6/14/06, RohitPatel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any solution to that (which does not force end-user of app to manage
sqlite
file fragments or to defragment disk) ?
A scheduled task or cron job is trivial to implement and does not
add any extra work for the end
>sqlite_master is it. there are no others.
How about sqlite_temp_master? Or database.sqlite_master for connected
databases?
On 6/14/06, RohitPatel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any solution to that (which does not force end-user of app to manage sqlite
file fragments or to defragment disk) ?
A scheduled task or cron job is trivial to implement and does not
add any extra work for the end user. Making Sqlite smart
RohitPatel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for prompt reply.
>
> Agreed. SQLite needs zero-configuration.
>
> But applications using multiple SQLite database files for read and write,
> makes those files with many-many fragments in disk. Which definitely
> degrades database file
Thanks for prompt reply.
Agreed. SQLite needs zero-configuration.
But applications using multiple SQLite database files for read and write,
makes those files with many-many fragments in disk. Which definitely
degrades database file read/write performance tremendously.
Any solution to that
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 03:34:04 -0700 (PDT), RohitPatel wrote:
>But like some other Databases, if SQLite does provide any way to set
>auto-increment for database file by some fixed percentage (say 20%, 40%
>etc.) such that everytime database file reaches some threashould size it
>automatically
I know and have used deframentation apps. Thats good. But why to force
end-users to defragment their disk.
SQLite manages free-space in file very-well (after deleting records). So I
also created one template database file with optimum number of records, then
deleted records and copied that file
30 matches
Mail list logo
