Hello,
This message may be off-topic in that I don't think the following issue
corresponds to a bug with SQLite, but it's something I've discovered
while using SQLite. Perhaps someone on the list has had a similar
experience or could make a suggestion.
A Linux 2.6/x86_64 system reports a
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My application's doesn't create any databases itself. It allows users to
> store any data. And users need to be able to store any number of columns in
> 1 table (the most I'v heard about is about 1, but I wouldn't be
> surprised if they had more). Trust me,
At 20:31 05/06/2007, you wrote:
> Excuse me for make this question but have you
> normalized your database? Try to design/define it in at least 3NormalForm.
My application's doesn't create any databases itself. It allows users to
store any data. And users need to be able to store any
When querying the table be sure to put the indexed column(s) in the
ORDER BY clause though - otherwise the index won't do you any good. :)
-T
> -Original Message-
> From: John Stanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:20 AM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
I see that it is a variant of type VT_BSTR containing
"2345678.9123" (or whatever), and I have to use strtod() to convert it
to the number I want. Is there a way to write the query to ensure that
it will give me a number instead of a string?
The type selection is done in your ODBC wrapper, and
nvi-yMULe1UMIukeIZ0/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wasn't specific enough, here's what's happening in my DOS window...
SQLite version 3.3.17
Enter ".help" for instructions
sqlite> sqlite3 testdatabase //hard return
That's not how it works. "sqlite3 testdatabase" is supposed to be run
from DOS
Thank you Igor, I appreciate your time!
I wasn't specific enough, here's what's happening in my DOS window...
---
SQLite version 3.3.17
Enter ".help" for instructions
sqlite> sqlite3 testdatabase //hard return
...> ; //hard return
SQL error: near "sqlite3": syntax error
sqlite>
---
I was
I believe ODBC will do type conversions for you. If not, use sscanf.
All sqlite data is stored as strings, I believe, anyway, so there's lots
of type conversion going whether it's explicit or not.
Representing dates as floating point numbers can be tricky because of
subtle rounding issues,
Greetings!
I am trying to talk to a small SQLite database through ADO and an ODBC
driver. I want to convert a date to a Julian day before using the date
in a query of a table that could have over a million records. In
SQliteSpy, the query "SELECT julianday('2007-06-05 12:34:56',
'localtime')
> Excuse me for make this question but have you
> normalized your database? Try to design/define it in at least 3NormalForm.
My application's doesn't create any databases itself. It allows users to
store any data. And users need to be able to store any number of columns in
1 table (the
At 16:40 05/06/2007, you wrote:
Joe Wilson napisa³(a):
> Please respond to the mailing list in the future.
Sorry. Different client. I didn't notice the adress.
> At least theres a known workaround, so no problem.
Workaround is not a solution.
>
> > > hence your problem.
> >
> > Sure it is.
nvi-yMULe1UMIukeIZ0/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello, thanks in advance, I've tried to answer this through extensive
searching.
The following syntax does not create a database, e.g.;
sqlite> sqlite3 testdatabase
SQLite defers creating the database file until you create the first
table.
Hello, thanks in advance, I've tried to answer this through extensive
searching.
The following syntax does not create a database, e.g.;
sqlite> sqlite3 testdatabase
However, if I create a sqlite database with TkSQLite, sqlite.exe can
'attach' to that test database, and, using the sqlite.exe
> >> Does
> >> using separate databases and attaching them improve concurrency (by
> >> providing finer-grained locking)?
> >
> > Yes it does. You can open a connection to a memory database, store each
> table
> > in a separate database and attach them if needed. I'v already changed
> > sqlite
Eduardo Morras uttered:
At 19:32 01/06/2007, you wrote:
When you have a connection with multiple attached databases and the
connection acquires an exclusive lock, does it always lock all attached
databases or does it keep track of which databases require the lock? Does
using separate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
When you have a connection with multiple attached databases and the
connection acquires an exclusive lock, does it always lock all attached
databases or does it keep track of which databases require the lock?
1st process:
C:\Documents and
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Joe Wilson napisa³(a):
> > Please respond to the mailing list in the future.
>
> Sorry. Different client. I didn't notice the adress.
>
> > At least there's a known workaround, so no problem.
>
> Workaround is not a solution.
Increasing the stack will fix your
On 05 Jun 2007 16:40:32 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joe Wilson napisał(a):
> At least theres a known workaround, so no problem.
Workaround is not a solution.
For an embedded (and lite) SQL engine like SQLite, you have to bear in
mind some features will never be
Joe Wilson napisał(a):
> Please respond to the mailing list in the future.
Sorry. Different client. I didn't notice the adress.
> At least theres a known workaround, so no problem.
Workaround is not a solution.
>
> > > hence your problem.
> >
> > Sure it is. Just like any bug or missing
Such a statement would never be issued on a low memory device.
This is an exceptional case involving a select with 2000
unions - I would not worry about it.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is very worrying since it means that the statement cannot be compiled on
> a
> low memory device.
> I
Is it wise to have a database with 2000 columns? Wouldn't it be better to
split this into several tables and query them separately?
Jonas
On 6/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is very worrying since it means that the statement cannot be compiled
on a
low memory
This is very worrying since it means that the statement cannot be compiled on a
low memory device.
I am new to Sqlite, but I would guess that a precompiled query could be used,
where memory is low
and I also suppose that variable values could be bound to that precompiled
query.
Clive
On 05 Jun 2007 14:59:40 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you sure it is sqlite that used the stack and not the jdbc driver
> (or your application)?
yes
> What happens if you run that query from the sqlite shell?
That query I pasted works. Bigger doesn't.
Ok, I
Thanks to everyone for their help and advice. I think I get it now.
Cheers,
cf
On 6/4/07, Chris Fonnesbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm at a complete loss about how to work with dates in SQLite. The
documentation doesnt seem to be helping me. I have a table with some date
fields, in the
B-Tree indices are in sorted sequence. Just raise an index on the column.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to maintain a sorted list of ~3000 entries.
I know that I can create a table and the SELECT from it with the ORDER BY clause
in order to sort it.
However I do not want the overhead
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'v read in change log that some stack allocted memory were moved to the
> heap, but I think that
> there is still to much allocated memory on the stack.
> After creating a table with 2000 columns, jdbc driver created a query that
> run out of stack.
> Default
On 05 Jun 2007 13:35:33 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'v read in change log that some stack allocted memory were moved to the heap,
but I think that there is still to much allocated memory on the stack.
After creating a table with 2000 columns, jdbc driver created a query
Clive.Bluston-cPKiotmf5pXN/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to maintain a sorted list of ~3000 entries.
I know that I can create a table and the SELECT from it with the
ORDER BY clause
in order to sort it.
However I do not want the overhead of doing this after adding a new
entry.
It
I'v read in change log that some stack allocted memory were moved to the heap,
but I think that there is still to much allocated memory on the stack.
After creating a table with 2000 columns, jdbc driver created a query that run
out of stack. Default java's stack limit is low, but it wasn't hard
Thanks i ll check it out..
-Original Message-
From: Lloyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 1:37 PM
To: Kirrthana M
Cc: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Copying the content of a table to another table
create table x(c1 number,c2 number);
create table
On 6/5/07, John Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK Sqlite doesn't have a date type, period. Just as it doesn't have
other types, but don't let it it stop you from using dates very
successfully with Sqlite by defining a date type and using the
functionally built into the product.
Indeed.
I would like to maintain a sorted list of ~3000 entries.
I know that I can create a table and the SELECT from it with the ORDER BY clause
in order to sort it.
However I do not want the overhead of doing this after adding a new entry.
It would be good if I could create an index that was sorted,
create table x(c1 number,c2 number);
create table y(v1 number,v2 number,v3 number,v4 number);
insert into y (v1,v2) select c1,c2 from x;
or better you can use the alter table command on your old table (here x)
alter table x add v3 number;
alter table x add v4 number;
the following way
You can use sqlite3_get_table. This will internally step through each
row.
Regards,
Phani
-Original Message-
From: Dave Furey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:52 AM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: RE: [sqlite] Re: How to retrieve results in a array?
Ok,
34 matches
Mail list logo
