Re: [sqlite] OT: General SQL Question
Excellent worked a treat. I tried that - it didnt work, however i think i must have had a typo as it works now!!! Cheers, Dan From: "Patrick Dunnigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org To: <sqlite-users@sqlite.org> Subject: Re: [sqlite] OT: General SQL Question Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 08:20:41 -0400 The it would be something like select A.item1,A.item2, B.col1, B.col2, C.supplier_name from audititems A, audits B, suppliers C where A.parentauditid = B.parentauditid and B.supplierid = C.supplierid and < rest of where clause > - Original Message - From: "Dan Keeley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <sqlite-users@sqlite.org> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 7:36 AM Subject: Re: [sqlite] OT: General SQL Question well audititems has a field parentauditid which links into audits. Audits has a supplierid field which is the key on suppliers.. From: "Patrick Dunnigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org To: <sqlite-users@sqlite.org> Subject: Re: [sqlite] OT: General SQL Question Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:16:55 -0400 It is possible depending on the make up of the tables. post the table structures and index / keys and I'll help - Original Message - From: "Dan Keeley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <sqlite-users@sqlite.org> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 6:38 AM Subject: [sqlite] OT: General SQL Question Hi, I know this isnt related to SQLite, however i dont really know where else to ask. I have 3 tables - Supplier, Audits and Audititems. At the moment, i select and join audits and Audititems and it works great. However i need fields from the supplier chain, so i effectively need to do a 3 way join. Is this possible? Thanks! Dan
Re: [sqlite] OT: General SQL Question
well audititems has a field parentauditid which links into audits. Audits has a supplierid field which is the key on suppliers.. From: "Patrick Dunnigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org To: <sqlite-users@sqlite.org> Subject: Re: [sqlite] OT: General SQL Question Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:16:55 -0400 It is possible depending on the make up of the tables. post the table structures and index / keys and I'll help - Original Message - From: "Dan Keeley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <sqlite-users@sqlite.org> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 6:38 AM Subject: [sqlite] OT: General SQL Question Hi, I know this isnt related to SQLite, however i dont really know where else to ask. I have 3 tables - Supplier, Audits and Audititems. At the moment, i select and join audits and Audititems and it works great. However i need fields from the supplier chain, so i effectively need to do a 3 way join. Is this possible? Thanks! Dan
[sqlite] OT: General SQL Question
Hi, I know this isnt related to SQLite, however i dont really know where else to ask. I have 3 tables - Supplier, Audits and Audititems. At the moment, i select and join audits and Audititems and it works great. However i need fields from the supplier chain, so i effectively need to do a 3 way join. Is this possible? Thanks! Dan
Re: [sqlite] Proposal: limit the number of columns in a table to 2000.
It's rarely a good idea to use binary numbers for limits such as that - you're exposing yourself to more corner case bugs. Interesting issue... I thing that we may use 2048 instead 2000. It´s an number more "binary". I think that it´s sufficient to 99.99% of the possible applications. That´s a good idea. The DBase accepted 128 collumns and that is my reference. I've need more than this. In a future development this value will be editable? Cláudio Leopoldino > As currently implemented, there is no fixed limit to > the number > of columns you can put in a table in SQLite. If the > CREATE TABLE > statement will fit in memory, then SQLite will > accept it. Call > the number of columns in a table K. I am proposing > to limit the > value of K to something like 2000. > > Would this cause anyone any grief? > > Note that SQLite is optimized for a K that is small > - a few dozen > at most. There are algorithms in the parser that > run in time > O(K*K). These could be changed to O(K) but with K > small the > constant of proportionality is such that it isn't > worthwhile. > So, even though SQLite will work on a table with a > million or > more columns, it is not a practical thing to do, in > general. > > The largest value of K I have seen in the wild is in > the > low 100s. I thought that I was testing with K > values in > the thousands, but I just checked and I think the > test > scripts only go as high as K=1000 in one place. > > The reason it would be good to limit K to about 2000 > is > that if I do so there are some places where I can > increase > the run-time performance some. It would also reduce > code complexity in a few spots. > > So who out there needs a value of K larger than > 2000? > What is the largest K that anybody is using? Who > would > object if I inserted a limit on K that was in the > range > of 1000 or 2000? > -- > D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Yahoo! Mail - Com 250MB de espaço. Abra sua conta! http://mail.yahoo.com.br/
Re: [sqlite] speedtest result is obsolete
I think you people are missing the point here, the performance increase you're seeing is all down to OS caching and will vary across different ports. It's nothing to do with sqlite, and will affect every package. Therefore the only way to fairly compare mysql/postgress/sqlite is to make sure the machine is cleanly booted, before running any tests. ( well and then maybe run the tests twice in succession, so the caching effect can be taken into account ) From: Christian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [sqlite] speedtest result is obsolete Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:27:21 + (GMT) On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Chris Schirlinger wrote: >> I did a small test to see if performance was linear with time. >> I wanted to make sure it was suitable for my application. >> It seems with both indexed and unindexed tables it doesn't take >> significantly longer to do the 1,000,000th insert than it did the >> first. > >I've discovered there are oodles of factors with this sort of thing, >all with depend on what you actually want to do. With 2 million rows, >a simple select statement (select * from wibble where key = 1) >returning 2000 records out of a dataset of 2 million+, takes between >3 and 10 seconds Doing a keyed search is no guarantee that you won't touch *every* single page in the table, if the rows are inserted in random order. Try this: sqlite> create table wibble2 as select * from wibble; sqlite> delete from wibble; sqlite> insert into wibble select * from wibble2 order by key; sqlite> drop table wibble2; Assuming key is the key field you want, the records will be inserted into wibble in key order. Selecting by key will then touch the least number of pages, speeding up the select. > >The *SECOND* time you call this, it's instant due mostly to SQLites >caching and HDD caching, however in our case, the 10 second wait at >the start was a major issue What do you expect? SQLite can't second guess what might be needed and load pages in the background ready for use. > >The only way we could get correct test results for our purposes was >to clean boot between every test, and then the results are >depressing. Still trying to get past this > Why? Does you program require the machine to be rebooted before use? I'm not trying to be facetious, but your test seem very invalid without further explanation. Christian -- /"\ \ /ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN - AGAINST HTML MAIL X - AGAINST MS ATTACHMENTS / \
RE: [sqlite] SQLite Advocacy
3. SQLite is much faster than SQL Server 7. I'm sorry but you simply cannot state that. Sure, it's faster in some circumstances, but there are situations where SQL Server 7 would definately be faster. And if you're in that situation, then you probably want advanced features such as replication and much more as well. I'm not a supporter of SQL Server, it just bugs me when people compare sqlite to something like that, oracle, mysql etc, when they're two completely different solutions to different problems ( Albeit with _some_ overlap ) Rgds, Dan
Re: [sqlite] ODBC Driver
The page that gives the (very impressive) list of drivers and wrappers for SQLite is: http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=SqliteWrappers The specific one you want is: http://www.ch-werner.de/sqliteodbc/ Excellent thanks! Rgds, Dan
Re: [sqlite] ODBC Driver
Ah, I should have made it clear _why_ i need an odbc driver. I'm using some commercial reporting and application generation tools to connect to it - They dont support sqlite natively, so I must use odbc. So which one should I use? Thanks! Dan From: Oliver Bienert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [sqlite] ODBC Driver Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 00:15:46 +0100 Dan Keeley wrote: Hi, I've finally got round to building sqlite. Now i'm after the odbc driver for it. Only thing is I can't seem to find the page on the sqlite website that lists other programs, such as an odbc driver for use with sqlite? Is there a recommended odbc driver to use? You do not need an ODBC Driver in order to use a sqlite database. You can directly talk to database via API. Regards Oliver
[sqlite] ODBC Driver
Hi, I've finally got round to building sqlite. Now i'm after the odbc driver for it. Only thing is I can't seem to find the page on the sqlite website that lists other programs, such as an odbc driver for use with sqlite? Is there a recommended odbc driver to use? Rgds, Dan
Re: [sqlite] Join function in select statement
Loading shared libraries is easy enough on windows and Linux, but throw AIX and HPUX and Solaris into the mix and suddenly things become more complicated. SQLite is a cross-platform library. It has to work on more than just windows. Really? Both these platforms support shared libraries - I use the functionality on each every day! Why therefore is it such a problem for SQLite? Dan
Re: [sqlite] OT: Reply-To Munging Considered Useful
Or, why dont we have a vote, and once it's decided, tuff luck thats how it stays? :) _ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
Re: [sqlite] OT: Reply-To Munging Considered Useful
> If you put an Reply-To Header in the mail, you make this options > disfunctional. Now, both buttons do the same thing, they don't work as > expected. > > Freedom is all about choice. Reply-To tries to disable the choice. Not > very friendly, in my opinion. > > Please switch off Reply-To again. > > Thank you. Why not specify both in the reply-to? That way you can remove the one you dont want?? _ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
