Re: [sqlite] Compile 64bit version of SQLIte on Solaris?

I just tried to see what ELF class is in after running the following (added -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64): /usr/local/bin/gcc -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -c -fPIC -DHAVE_USLEEP sqlite3.c # file libsqlite3.so grep ELF libsqlite3.so: ELF 32-bit LSB dynamic lib 80386 Version 1 [FPU], dynamically linked, not

Re: [sqlite] Compile 64bit version of SQLIte on Solaris?

Hi there, The reason I ask is that I have created a C shared lib using SQLite functions etc and the custom shared lib I have created needs to be ELF class 64. At the moment I am getting the ELF class issues: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS32 That is why I am hoping I can compile the main SQLite

[sqlite] Compile 64bit version of SQLIte on Solaris?

Hi there, I am getting the following error when trying to compile SQLite on a Solaris 64 bit machine: /usr/local/bin/gcc -m64 -R/usr/sfw/lib/64 -c -fPIC -DHAVE_USLEEP sqlite3.c sqlite3.c:1: sorry, unimplemented: 64-bit mode not compiled in Can someone please let me know how I can do

Re: [sqlite] Loading a FTS3 table into ram without reindexing

Am Montag, den 22.11.2010, 01:24 + schrieb Simon Slavin: > On 22 Nov 2010, at 12:49am, boscowitch wrote: > > > now i switched to an Fulltext search table FTS3 which improved speed > > drastically but it now need over ~15s on my 3Ghrz to load all entrys > > into the ram FTS3 table (with simple

Re: [sqlite] Loading a FTS3 table into ram without reindexing

On 22 Nov 2010, at 12:49am, boscowitch wrote: > now i switched to an Fulltext search table FTS3 which improved speed > drastically but it now need over ~15s on my 3Ghrz to load all entrys > into the ram FTS3 table (with simple tokenizer). > (the current code is in this db.c file in the init_db

[sqlite] Loading a FTS3 table into ram without reindexing

Hi, atm i'm developing an open source instant dictionary lookup tool wadoku-notify (wadoku.de japanese german dictionary) for speed improvement i used fadvise function to let the kernel load the db file into memory, but now i ported the app to windows and mac os x and i let sqlite do the ram

Re: [sqlite] sqlite3_get_table() vs sqlite3_step

Hi Igor, No, no... I really meant a roundtrips to disk. So, while sqlite3_get_table() seemed like a faster but memory hungry mechanism to retrieve the result set, sqlite3_step() seemed that it would take longer, especially in disk-based systems, but more memory-efficient. Thanks for pointing

Re: [sqlite] sqlite3_get_table() vs sqlite3_step

Thanks a lot Max! -- Tito On 21 Nov 2010, at 14:04, Max Vlasov wrote: > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Tito Ciuro wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Sounds like sqlite3_get_table() would take less time to access the storage >> subsystem as opposed to

Re: [sqlite] sqlite3_get_table() vs sqlite3_step

Tito Ciuro wrote: > Let me start by saying that I'm aware that sqlite3_get_table() should not be > used (as per the documentation). I'm curious about > one thing though: if the computer/device has sufficient memory to hold the > result set returned by sqlite3_get_table(),

Re: [sqlite] Error in the Doc

Vander Clock Stephane wrote: > just to say you that the doc probably want to say : > > If the 3rd parameter to sqlite3_open_v2() is not one of the combinations > shown above or *NOT* one of the combinations > shown above combined with the SQLITE_OPEN_NOMUTEX, >

Re: [sqlite] sqlite3_get_table() vs sqlite3_step

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Tito Ciuro wrote: > Hello, > > Sounds like sqlite3_get_table() would take less time to access the storage > subsystem as opposed to sqlite_step() with multiple roundtrips, at the > expense of using lots more RAM, of course. So assuming RAM wasn't

[sqlite] sqlite3_get_table() vs sqlite3_step

Hello, Let me start by saying that I'm aware that sqlite3_get_table() should not be used (as per the documentation). I'm curious about one thing though: if the computer/device has sufficient memory to hold the result set returned by sqlite3_get_table(), wouldn't it be more optimized

[sqlite] Error in the Doc

Hello, just to say you that the doc probably want to say : If the 3rd parameter to sqlite3_open_v2() is not one of the combinations shown above or *NOT* one of the combinations shown above combined with the SQLITE_OPEN_NOMUTEX, SQLITE_OPEN_FULLMUTEX, SQLITE_OPEN_SHAREDCACHE and/or

Re: [sqlite] SQLite really SLOW on Solaris?

On 21 Nov 2010, at 11:46am, Kees Nuyt wrote: > wrote: > >> Hi Simon, >> >> Yup, on Solaris I ran this and it was 1000 milliseconds for the following: >> >> int theReturn = sqlite3_sleep(1); >> >> Any way you know I can make it sleep on Solaris for 1 millisecond?

Re: [sqlite] SQLite really SLOW on Solaris?

Thanks Kees, much appreciated ;-) -Original Message- From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Kees Nuyt Sent: 21 November 2010 01:47 PM To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org Subject: Re: [sqlite] SQLite really SLOW on Solaris? On Sun, 21 Nov 2010

Re: [sqlite] SQLite really SLOW on Solaris?

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:08:31 +0200, "Lynton Grice" wrote: >Hi Simon, > >Yup, on Solaris I ran this and it was 1000 milliseconds for the following: > >int theReturn = sqlite3_sleep(1); > >Any way you know I can make it sleep on Solaris for 1 millisecond? Any other >C

Re: [sqlite] SQLite really SLOW on Solaris?

Hi Simon, Yup, on Solaris I ran this and it was 1000 milliseconds for the following: int theReturn = sqlite3_sleep(1); Any way you know I can make it sleep on Solaris for 1 millisecond? Any other C tricks you know of? Thanks ;-) Lynton -Original Message- From:

Re: [sqlite] SQLite really SLOW on Solaris?

On 21 Nov 2010, at 10:10am, Lynton Grice wrote: > in my "queue implementation" I add in a: > > sqlite3_sleep(1); > > Essentially I wanted to sleep for "1 millisecond" between sends to the queue > (in the send function itself), so that if the sender is sending too fast it > allows receivers to

Re: [sqlite] SQLite really SLOW on Solaris?

Hi Eric, Hi Roger, Interesting, I found the issue with the "slow solaris issue". You see in my "queue implementation" I add in a: sqlite3_sleep(1); Essentially I wanted to sleep for "1 millisecond" between sends to the queue (in the send function itself), so that if the sender is sending too