On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:54:50 +, "Hugo Ferreira"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hmmm... Would it be possible to make a trigger on a
>table such that if any update fails, it does an insert?
>If so, then one would only need to issue updates.
I don't think that would be possible, an update
Did you try using INSERT OR REPLACE?
Hugo Ferreira wrote:
> Hmmm... Would it be possible to make a trigger on a table such that if any
> update fails, it does an insert?
> If so, then one would only need to issue updates.
>
> On Dec 26, 2007 11:35 AM, Kees Nuyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:17:43 +0200, Ion Silvestru
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>QUESTION: is there a better way to make this important decision? using
>>>Sqlite
>
>>INSERT OR REPLACE may work for you.
>
>There is a problem with "INSERT OR REPLACE" in that "REPLACE" is not
>truly , but is
>>QUESTION: is there a better way to make this important decision? using
>>Sqlite
>INSERT OR REPLACE may work for you.
There is a problem with "INSERT OR REPLACE" in that "REPLACE" is not
truly , but is (existing row is deleted and
new row is added), or I am wrong?
If I am correct, then a
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:07:12 +0100, "Mag. Wilhelm Braun"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>hi,
>
>just a short question to speed up:
>
>as with any database one has quite often to decide if we *INSERT a NEW
>row -- or -- UPDATE an existing row*
>
>
>at the moment I do a check select on an unique ID
hi,
just a short question to speed up:
as with any database one has quite often to decide if we *INSERT a NEW
row -- or -- UPDATE an existing row*
at the moment I do a check select on an unique ID intege which is
resonable fast:
code:
6 matches
Mail list logo