Re: [sqlite] 1 reader 1 writer but sqlite3_step fails wit h “database is locked” error in both processes

Thank you Igor! Now I understand your OR! - Original Message From: Igor Tandetnik To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org Sent: Sun, February 14, 2010 2:54:35 PM Subject: Re: [sqlite] 1 reader 1 writer but sqlite3_step fails with “database is locked” error in both processes

Re: [sqlite] Prohibitive indexing time with large tables

Am 14.02.2010 18:53, schrieb Max Vlasov: >> This is appx. 500MB cache, why not trying with 2,000,000 cache size ? :-) >> >> >> > Hmm, managed to increase it to only 1,000,000 (x1024) size, larger values > bring to "Out of memory" finally, and this values (1G) allows up to > 6,000,000 fast

[sqlite] SQL Browser with Vista 64 Bit

Hello, Please, can you give me an advice how to make the SQL Browser work with Vista 64 Bit? Regards, Alexandra Kafka ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] 1 reader 1 writer but sqlite3_step fails wit h “database is locked” error in both processes

Then why sqlite3_step() fails for the reader and for the writer? - Original Message From: Igor Tandetnik To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org Sent: Sun, February 14, 2010 2:54:35 PM Subject: Re: [sqlite] 1 reader 1 writer but sqlite3_step fails with “database is locked”

Re: [sqlite] 1 reader 1 writer but sqlite3_step fails wit h “database is locked” error in both pr ocesses

a1rex wrote: > I thought that I can have 1 writer and many readers You thought incorrectly. You can have one writer OR many readers. Igor Tandetnik ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org

[sqlite] 1 reader 1 writer but sqlite3_step fails wit h “database is locked” error in both processes

Process A updates data base table in the tight loop. Nothing special: loop sql = "UPDATE table SET blob=:blob WHERE id=?"; rc = sqlite3_prepare_v2(…) rc = sqlite3_bind_int(…) sqlite3_bind_blob(…) rc = sqlite3_step(…) rc = sqlite3_reset(…) rc = sqlite3_finalize(…); Process B just reads

Re: [sqlite] Prohibitive indexing time with large tables

> This is appx. 500MB cache, why not trying with 2,000,000 cache size ? :-) > > Hmm, managed to increase it to only 1,000,000 (x1024) size, larger values bring to "Out of memory" finally, and this values (1G) allows up to 6,000,000 fast records for 100 bytes field per record index. Still good,

Re: [sqlite] Prohibitive indexing time with large tables

> Marcus, > > although increasing cache size is a good method, it may sometimes give > unpredictable results (in terms of performance). hm... why ? > I looked at the vdbe code (EXPLAIN CREATE INDEX ... ) of the index > creation > and it seems like there is no special sorting algorithm (CMIIW

Re: [sqlite] Prohibitive indexing time with large tables

Marcus, although increasing cache size is a good method, it may sometimes give unpredictable results (in terms of performance). I looked at the vdbe code (EXPLAIN CREATE INDEX ... ) of the index creation and it seems like there is no special sorting algorithm (CMIIW please). Excluding all "make

Re: [sqlite] Prohibitive indexing time with large tables

Just for my curiosity: Have you tried to increase the cache as already suggested ? I ran into a similar problem while playing with a artificial test database with appx. 10 Mio records and creating an index. Without drastically increasing the cache size sqlite appears not to be able to create an

Re: [sqlite] Prohibitive indexing time with large tables

Jerome, It's an an interesting challenge, thanks for the post I tried to research more and did some tests. My test database contains a table with 10,000,000 records of the text 100 chars in length CREATE TABLE [TestTable] ( [Id] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT, [Text] TEXT ) I suppose your