Hi all
Is there a way to detect if a transaction is active on the current connection?
Basically the equivalent of "PQtransactionStatus" in postgresql.
I need that to automate rollback or commit depending on other variables within
my application while keeping the connection open.
Thanks!
Nicola
- Original Message
> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:50:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Transaction detection...
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > Is there a way to detect if a transaction is act
- Original Message
> MemPage bitfield patch below.
>
> sizeof(MemPage) on Linux:
>
> original: 84
> patched: 76
> ...
> Break-even for memory is 904/8 = 113 MemPage structs allocated.
I didn't look at the code, so mind me :)
If the MemPage are malloced individually (instead of b
- Original Message
> From: Dennis Cote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:09:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] sqlite internal structs don't make use of C bitfields?
> You may want to look at how the isInited field is used. You may be able
>
Hi all
I am trying to put in place a simple replication process to copy a database
from one machine to an other.
The table I have is something like
CREATE TABLE sn2uid(sn VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL, uid INTEGER NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY
(sn));
CREATE INDEX uidindex on sn2uid ( uid )
Where the (sn,uid) p
> - Original Message
> From: Joe Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 8:36:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Database replication question
>
>
> Large bulk inserts with more than one index (implicit or explicit)
> is not SQLite's strong suit
- Original Message
From: Martin Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 2:00:45 PM
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Capturing output from SQLlite with variables in a BASH
script
litenoob wrote:
> Hi, I'm wondering how to write a BASH script that will cap
>
> - Original Message
> From: Zbigniew Baniewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Problem with SQLite FastCGI module "malformed database
> schema"
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 12:59:45PM -0700, Joe Wi
- Original Message
> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 3:32:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] 3.5.0 alpha TryEnterCriticalSection linker error
>
>
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_=D6nnerby?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > H
- Original Message
> From: John Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:43:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Re: Threads
>
> If you machine has a single disk it fundamentally does not have parallel
> I/O. If you have a machine with m
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem (I suspect) is that you have an index on Table3.
> As you insert to records into Table3, those record go at the
> end, which is very efficient. But the index entries have to
> be inserted in index order, which means they get scattered
> out all through the
- Original Message
From: Jay Sprenkle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 5/1/06, Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've spent a long time debugging low performance of an
> > application that uses :memory: database and have found
> > that sqlite v2 is much faster than v3. After some
> > digging
Hi all
As discussed before, I have performance issues when using sqlite on big (multi
gig) databases.
I am still trying to use sqlite as the main db because it simplifies deployment
so much.
The main reason seems to be that inserting in the btree is very slow (even
using transactions) because
- Original Message
From: Unit 5 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2006 8:02:51 AM
Subject: RE: [sqlite] Insert statement taking too long
> --- Robert Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You need to create an index on the columns you're
> > joi
- Original Message
From: Christian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2006 8:38:51 AM
Subject: Re: [sqlite] indexes in memory
> chetana bhargav uttered:
> > Hi,
>
> > I have a question regrading indexes,
> >
> > When I open a connection,
>
Hi all
it seems that I am running in a problem with the way sqlite accesses the disk
when inserting rows of data in databases that are large in number of records
but not necessary big on disk (I am talking millions of records in files that
are in the order of a few hundred MBytes).
I reduced t
- Original Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> SQLite inserts in records in primary key order. (That is not
> strictly true - but it is close enough to being true for the
> purposes of what follows.) So when you insert records that
> are already in fname order,
- Original Message
> From: Christian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is this a likely usage scenario? Will your application regularly
> umount/mount the filesystem between transactions? While sounding
> facetious, I'm not trying to. Your otherwise excellent example is let down
> by a probably
- Original Message
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > One question though: are the file access "sorted", so that seeks are
> > minimised when performing a transaction (making the assumption that
> > the file is not fragmented on disk)?
> >
> I'm not sure wha
- Original Message
> From: Christian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But SQLite depends on the OS caching abilities for much of it's
> performance. Removing it is like saying SQLite is rubbish on Intel
> processors after testing on a i486.
yes and no: while it's nice to be able to rely someh
- Original Message
> From: Joe Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The disk read/write reordering optimization only works if the
> database file is contiguous on the disk and not fragmented.
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Basically, the db file is accessed with seek + read/write operations
Sorry it took me some time to get back to this thread.
- Original Message
From: Christian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> When your database does not fit in memory, yes, you're right, the OS may
> well get caching wrong, and in the worst way possible. Two things though:
> - SQLite does have
22 matches
Mail list logo
