interesting. thanks for the tip.
I"ll give it some consideration.
-James
On Apr 21, 2008, at 1:07 :50PM, Scott Hess wrote:
> If you create a file on disk and set PRAGMA synchronous = OFF, you
> should get pretty close to the performance of a shared in-memory
> database on most modern desktop
If you create a file on disk and set PRAGMA synchronous = OFF, you
should get pretty close to the performance of a shared in-memory
database on most modern desktop operating systems - maybe close enough
that you won't care to do anything beyond that. If you further look
at the recent
yes. However, CoreData queues up modified managed objects in a managed
object context and then commits them all in one shot making sure the
serialization is done on the back side.
So, it does basically what someone here recommended earlier. I just
don't have to write the mechanism myself.
James Gregurich wrote:
> I think I will go with CoreData on MacOSX and figure out something
> else to do on Windows later.
>
>
>
You do know that CoreData uses SQLite for its persistant storage.
Dennis Cote
___
sqlite-users mailing list
On Apr 20, 2008, at 12:29 AM, James Gregurich wrote:
>
> oh good! That isn't the version that ships with Leopard, but I can
> live with deploying my own version as part of my app.
>
> Will l get the writer parallelism I'm after as long as each thread
> writes exclusively into its own attached
for those who may be interested:
I ran a test with SQLite version: 3.5.8
I tried the scheme described earlier with each thread sharing a
connection but writing into its own attached in-memory db on that
connection. Didn't work. all but the first writer thread failed with
a SQLITE_ERROR
new file in vfs, a new handler is created and
> assigned to
> that filename and registered in this map.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Gregurich
> Sent: sábado, 19 de abril de 2008 17:02
> T
] On Behalf Of James Gregurich
Sent: sábado, 19 de abril de 2008 17:02
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] multiple writers for in-memory datastore
I don't immediately see how that would solve the problem.
The limitation of interest here (based on my perhaps limited
I don't immediately see how that would solve the problem.
The limitation of interest here (based on my perhaps limited
understanding) is that locking has file-level granularity. I don't
immediately see how a VST implementation would allow for changing the
locking granularity of the overall
what about creating a VFS for such task ? Can be accomplished in many ways,
using heap memory, shared memory... not so easy to do, but not much
complicated too... locking can be provided by multiple-readers
single-writers locks strategies, etc...
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 2:29 PM, James Gregurich
oh good! That isn't the version that ships with Leopard, but I can
live with deploying my own version as part of my app.
Will l get the writer parallelism I'm after as long as each thread
writes exclusively into its own attached db?
in other wordstwo bulk insert operations going on
On Apr 19, 2008, at 6:06 AM, James Gregurich wrote:
>
> I'll ask this question. The answer is probably "no," but I'll ask it
> for the sake of completeness.
>
>
> Suppose I created an in-memory db. I use the attach command to
> associate an additional in-memory db. Suppose I assign the main db
I'll ask this question. The answer is probably "no," but I'll ask it
for the sake of completeness.
Suppose I created an in-memory db. I use the attach command to
associate an additional in-memory db. Suppose I assign the main db to
thread 1 and the associated db to thread 2. Can I share
How about this instead.
Read your records, parse and format into some known format by your
application. Write the data to disk in a file.
Then put a single entry into a sqlite table. specifing the on disk file name.
Sqlite may only have one write operation running concurrently. There are
On Apr 18, 2008, at 2:33 :32PM, Dennis Cote wrote:
>
> To share an attached database the threads must be able to name it, and
> this is only possible with a file database.
you could change the open() function to be able to assign a name to an
in-memory db and then keep a mapping of all the
James Gregurich wrote:
>> You will have to open the memory database and attach the db file since
>> SQLite can't attach to a memory database.
>
> is this information wrong?
> http://www.blitzbasic.com/Community/posts.php?topic=60981
>
No it's not. I was mistaken. SQLite can attach a memory
On Apr 18, 2008, at 1:25 :36PM, Dennis Cote wrote:
> James Gregurich wrote:
>>
>> suppose I create a temporary db file on disk. Each task ( a thread)
>> opens a connection to the temp file and attaches an in-memory db to
>> it.
>
> You will have to open the memory database and attach the db file
James Gregurich wrote:
>
> suppose I create a temporary db file on disk. Each task ( a thread)
> opens a connection to the temp file and attaches an in-memory db to
> it.
You will have to open the memory database and attach the db file since
SQLite can't attach to a memory database.
I
I'm working on a commercial, boxed, desktop product. I can't be
creating new mounted disks on a customer's system every time he uses
my application.
How about this...
suppose I create a temporary db file on disk. Each task ( a thread)
opens a connection to the temp file and attaches
James Gregurich wrote:
> If the sqlite statement had a temporary storage area so that I could
> load up a bunch of rows and then commit them in one shot so that the
> lock on the db was not held very long by a single transaction, that
> would probably work.
>
Using a RAM disk you could
If the sqlite statement had a temporary storage area so that I could
load up a bunch of rows and then commit them in one shot so that the
lock on the db was not held very long by a single transaction, that
would probably work.
However, my reading of the documentation leads me to believe
James Gregurich wrote:
>
> I need to set up multiple writers to an in-memory datastore. I just
> discovered that you can't have more than one connection to an in-
> memory store.
>
> I can give each task its own independent datastore if there is a way I
> can merge the contents of each
hi!
I need to set up multiple writers to an in-memory datastore. I just
discovered that you can't have more than one connection to an in-
memory store.
I can give each task its own independent datastore if there is a way I
can merge the contents of each store into a central store. Is there
23 matches
Mail list logo
