-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wade Williams wrote:
> In my research it appears SQLite may not be a good option, since the
> only replication appears to be "lock the database and copy the file to
> the new machine."
Others have pointed out the simplicity of doing that. It is
Greetings,
Does anyone know a reliable converter to export a bunch of tables in
an M$ excel file to regular ISO SQL92/2003 or, preferably (school
work), Oracle? No GUI
required, just an easy way to convert them...
TIA, sorry for the OT
Nuno Magalhães
I would think that it would be even easier than that -- simply write a
separate 20-line python script that starts a transaction (thus assuring
that no one else is writing to the db while the file is being copied),
then forks an rsync to copy the single database file to another file on
the
It would be a relatively minor job to make Sqlite replicate itself. The
partitioning in its design seperates the i/o level.
Wade Williams wrote:
> I'm looking for an honest assessment from someone that may have made
> this decision in the past.
>
> I'm considering using an embedded database
although I'm not an sqlite expert (but using it since a
few month) I'm wondering why you actually need that
sqlite-internal recovery system:
I understand that you have two servers running either parallel
or one of them will switched on in case of a failure of the primary
server, right ?
I also
SQLite is file-based (no server behind DB), you must provide your own
synchronization (copying file, executing SQL on both databases, etc).
I don't know if there´s an application/library that does it for you
automatically.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
I'm looking for an honest assessment from someone that may have made
this decision in the past.
I'm considering using an embedded database for an upcoming
application. Operation rate is high 20,000-60,000 per day. (Those
will mostly be selects, but some smaller percentage will be inserts).
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Your approach only works in simple cases. The number of changes is a
> connection/sqlite3* wide number - ie any SQLite statements associated with it
> can cause changes. This would certainly be the case when multi-threading is
> used.
Yes, agreed
> Even in
Thanks Igor,your examples really helped me!
--- Igor Tandetnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "L B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Just to better understand, the index on (x,y,z),
> would
> > it be useful for queries like
> >
> > select * from table1 inner join
"Rajesh Nair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yes I am looking for something like that.
> Can you explain "create table mytable (x, y, z, primary key(x, y));"
> What it will do?
It will create a table with three columns and a compound primary key
encompassing two of
Yes I am looking for something like that.
Can you explain "create table mytable (x, y, z, primary key(x, y));"
What it will do? can I specify x as integer and y as text ?
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Igor Tandetnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Rajesh Nair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote in
"Rajesh Nair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Can I define a combination-key in sqlite. If yes, how?
> Sqlite is allowing me to declare more than one PRIMARY KEY.
I'm not sure I understand the question, but are you perhaps looking for
something like
create table
"L B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Just to better understand, the index on (x,y,z), would
> it be useful for queries like
>
> select * from table1 inner join table2
> on table1.x=table2.x and table1.y = table2.y and
> table1.z=table2.z
Yes.
> or
>
> "table1.y =
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Edzard Pasma wrote:
> It appears satisfactory so far. Still wonder why a work-around like this is
> needed.
Your approach only works in simple cases. The number of changes is a
connection/sqlite3* wide number - ie any SQLite statements associated
Just to better understand, the index on (x,y,z), would
it be useful for queries like
select * from table1 inner join table2
on table1.x=table2.x and table1.y = table2.y and
table1.z=table2.z
or
"table1.y = table2.y and table1.z=table2.z" would not
benefit the index (so it would be better 3
15 matches
Mail list logo
