Ignore the first note. Table main.t is persistent, whrereas temp.t is
automatically dropped on closing the connection.
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] Im
Auftrag von Hick Gunter
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. März 2017 08:40
An:
I find the .explain/explain functionality very helpful in clearing up
what happens and why.
Note the error when creating main.t.
Note the database number 1 (for temp) vs. 0 (for main) in the OpenWrite and
TableLock instructions.
asql> create temp table t (db, val);
asql> create table main.t (d
Can you provide an example of the bytecode produced?
In the SQLite shell type:
.explain
explain ;
Typical output (with SQLite version 3.7.14.1):
asql> .explain
asql> explain update mytable set myfield=2 where myconst=7;
addr opcode p1p2p3p4 p5 comment
---
On 29/03/17 02:38, Simon Slavin wrote:
On 29 Mar 2017, at 1:34am, Domingo Alvarez Duarte wrote:
It seems sqlite look first if there is a temp.table before main.table and
without qualification temp.table is used.
You got it. It’s not obvious that this is what SQLite would do. But now you
On 29 Mar 2017, at 1:34am, Domingo Alvarez Duarte wrote:
>
> It seems sqlite look first if there is a temp.table before main.table and
> without qualification temp.table is used.
You got it. It’s not obvious that this is what SQLite would do. But now you
know it you understand what is happe
On 29 Mar 2017, at 1:33am, Mark Brand wrote:
>> The point isn't about which table one expects to receive the update, it's
>> that *both* tables get updated.
No. Just the one table is updated: the temp.t table. Both rows of data are in
that table. Try repeating your experiment but replace t
Hello !
I repeated your simple case and could see that only the temp.t tabale is
populated/updates.
It seems sqlite look first if there is a temp.table before main.table
and without qualification temp.table is used.
Cheers !
On 28/03/17 21:12, Mark Brand wrote:
On 29/03/17 01:35, Simon
On 29/03/17 02:12, Mark Brand wrote:
On 29/03/17 01:35, Simon Slavin wrote:
On 28 Mar 2017, at 11:02pm, Mark Brand wrote:
create temp table t (db, val);
insert into t select 'temp', 'original';
create table t (db, val);
insert into t select 'main', 'original';
Here’s your problem:
SQLi
On 29/03/17 01:35, Simon Slavin wrote:
On 28 Mar 2017, at 11:02pm, Mark Brand wrote:
create temp table t (db, val);
insert into t select 'temp', 'original';
create table t (db, val);
insert into t select 'main', 'original';
Here’s your problem:
SQLite version 3.16.0 2016-11-04 19:09:39
En
On 28 Mar 2017, at 11:02pm, Mark Brand wrote:
> create temp table t (db, val);
> insert into t select 'temp', 'original';
>
> create table t (db, val);
> insert into t select 'main', 'original';
Here’s your problem:
SQLite version 3.16.0 2016-11-04 19:09:39
Enter ".help" for usage hints.
sqli
HI,
Something seems to go wrong in this example where an operation
unexpectedly gets applied both main and temp.
The order of table creation seems to be one crucial factor. I ran into
this while trying to get my head around the use of temporary triggers,
which seems to be the other necessary
We are trying to update from sqlite3 3.10 to 3.17. Our virtual table
modules are encountering problems with 3.17 since the 'xOpen' callback
is now being called for value change and row deletion operations.
Previously it was only being called for read-only queries.
We are using reader/writer l
Thank you very much for replying so quickly!
> On 3/28/17, Paul wrote:
> > According to datatypes page https://sqlite.org/datatype3.html SQLite choses
> > width of the integer automatically. Does it mean that if I let's say want to
> > bind a number 5 in the query that inserts/updates rows it
On 3/28/17, Paul wrote:
> According to datatypes page https://sqlite.org/datatype3.html SQLite choses
> width of the integer automatically. Does it mean that if I let's say want to
> bind a number 5 in the query that inserts/updates rows it will be stored in
> database as 1-byte integer regardless
According to datatypes page https://sqlite.org/datatype3.html SQLite choses
width of the integer automatically. Does it mean that if I let's say want to
bind a number 5 in the query that inserts/updates rows it will be stored in
database as 1-byte integer regardless of the use of sqlite3_bind_in
You can always use CROSS JOIN to force a specific join order as in:
SELECT ... FROM mytable m CROSS_JOIN split s ON (s.input = m.string_field) JOIN
anothertable a ON (a.field = s.output) ...
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org]
I was a bit/very dull, schoolboy error :( re 32-bit - long week and it's
only Tuesday :)
Re: storing the length in the blob itself this would affect parsing the
serial types where, as now, you can determine the record length by looking
at the serial types and 'skip' through them to load a specific
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Dominique Devienne
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Hick Gunter wrote:
>
> >
> > The "estimated cost" is described as "how many disk IO operations are
> > expected". Version higher than 3.8.2 allow setting an "estimatedRows"
> > (default: 25) and versi
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Paul Sanderson <
sandersonforens...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am sure Richard will correct me if I am wrong. But...
>
> The format for a record is
>
> 1. payload length varint
> 2. rowid varint (optional)
> 3. serial type array varint
> 4. serial types
> followed by t
I am sure Richard will correct me if I am wrong. But...
The format for a record is
1. payload length varint
2. rowid varint (optional)
3. serial type array varint
4. serial types
followed by the data for the serial types
The issue are as I see them:
The payload length varint above, this is the
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 3/27/17, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> > Is it likely the maximum BLOB size will be increased in a not too distant
> > future version of SQLite?
>
> The maximum blob size could, in theory, be increased to 4GiB. But the
> current file forma
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Hick Gunter wrote:
> >FWIW, I've often wondered about the cost estimates of real tables versus
> virtual tables, especially since many vtables implementations don't involve
> real IO but pure in-memory computations. There's >very little advice or
> documentation
On 3/27/17, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> HI,
> Is it likely the maximum BLOB size will be increased in a not too distant
> future version of SQLite?
>
The maximum blob size could, in theory, be increased to 4GiB. But the
current file format will not accommodate anything larger than that.
--
D. R
>FWIW, I've often wondered about the cost estimates of real tables versus
>virtual tables, especially since many vtables implementations don't involve
>real IO but pure in-memory computations. There's >very little advice or
>documentation on this important subject, and Max's email reveals that
HI,
Is it likely the maximum BLOB size will be increased in a not too distant
future version of SQLite?
In a world of machines where 1TB memory is not unusual the current upper
limit of ~2GB is proving to be restrictive for my use.
One might suggest that storing binary data of that size using SQ
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Max Vlasov wrote:
> I sometimes use virtual tables to implement some kind of one-to-many
> output. One of examples mentioned previously was the comma list virtual
> table when a field containing comma-separated values might be used to
> output rows of values from
Hi,
I sometimes use virtual tables to implement some kind of one-to-many
output. One of examples mentioned previously was the comma list virtual
table when a field containing comma-separated values might be used to
output rows of values from this list. Other example - performing
regexp-like query
Daniel Polski wrote:
> Can using "PRAGMA optimize" in one thread create a situation where
> "BEGIN IMMEDIATE TRANSACTION" in another thread fails?
While the optimization is done, the database is locked, just as with
any other transaction that does writes. So any other thread has to use
a timeout.
Den 2017-03-24 kl. 08:09, skrev Daniel Polski:
The "PRAGMA optimize" looks interesting.
- Can using "PRAGMA optimize" in one thread create a situation where
"BEGIN IMMEDIATE TRANSACTION" in another thread fails? (The threads
are using different connections)
- Is there any risk of "optimizati
29 matches
Mail list logo
