[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Process A wants to modify the database, so it flock()s
> the rows it needs to changes and starts changing them.
> But half way in the middle of the change, somebody sends
> process A a SIGKILL and it dies. The OS automatically
> releases the flocks as process A
> > into the matter.
>
> Out of curiosity why won't flock() work?
Process A wants to modify the database, so it flock()s
the rows it needs to changes and starts changing them.
But half way in the middle of the change, somebody sends
process A a SIGKILL and it dies. The OS automatically
> -Original Message-
> From: RohitPatel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 1:58 AM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: [sqlite] SQLite Vs VistaDB - Comparison ???
Getting back on track ...
> VistaDB
> HomePage : www.vistad
Friday, June 16, 2006, 5:32:32 PM, Andrew Piskorski wrote:
> Would using a non-overwriting MVCC storage layer a la PostgreSQL (but
> still using client SQLite processes only, no client/server
> arrangement) make any of the above easier or better?
See http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=BlueSky
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 12:35:33PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Out of curiosity why won't flock() work?
>
> Process A wants to modify the database, so it flock()s
> the rows it needs to changes and starts changing them.
> But half way in the middle of the change, somebody sends
> process
MAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:39 AM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] SQLite Vs VistaDB - Comparison ???
>
>
>
> Okay I know very little about these things, but the fact that
> Access/JET MDB
> files are serverless (it's just a bunc
Christian Smith wrote:
Bogus�aw Brandys uttered:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mikey C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please implement table and row level locking. :-)
People commonly believe that doing so must be easy. I
certainly get a lot of requests for it from people who
think they know how.
"Jay Sprenkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/16/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mikey C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Please implement table and row level locking. :-)
> >
> >
> > If you think you know a way to implement row-level
> > locking that does not impose
On 6/16/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mikey C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please implement table and row level locking. :-)
If you think you know a way to implement row-level
locking that does not impose one of the above
limitations, then please tell me and I will look
Okay I know very little about these things, but the fact that Access/JET MDB
files are serverless (it's just a bunch of Windows dll's) in the same way as
SQLite, and that JET implements row and table level locking means I guess it
is possible.
If it meant losing ACID compliance, then no, forget
Bogus�aw Brandys uttered:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mikey C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please implement table and row level locking. :-)
People commonly believe that doing so must be easy. I
certainly get a lot of requests for it from people who
think they know how. But in fact, row-level
Bogus³aw Brandys said:
> In fact that is as I fairy know how it's implemented in Firebird Classic
> Server (where each server process has separate lock manager I suppose)
> This classic server processes are spawn by xinetd deamon.
> I see sqlite in very similar manner : sqlite library is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mikey C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please implement table and row level locking. :-)
People commonly believe that doing so must be easy. I
certainly get a lot of requests for it from people who
think they know how. But in fact, row-level locking
is extraordinarily
Mikey C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please implement table and row level locking. :-)
People commonly believe that doing so must be easy. I
certainly get a lot of requests for it from people who
think they know how. But in fact, row-level locking
is extraordinarily difficult. To my
On 6/16/06, René Tegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i found MS-Access a very reasonable
flat-file database. It may lack fancy features like encrytion, but has
it advantages as well
Pro's: any windows client has the driver installed (no need to install
office), accessable by odbc, reasonable sql
MS Access (MDB files) use the Jet engine. Not every PC has the correct
drivers, since jet has changed many times as Access evolved from version 2.0
thru 95, XP and 2003.
Access is NOT ACID compliant, is limited in maximum database size, is
limited to 255 connections.
RohitPatel schreef:
Please put forward your views, ideas, thoughts, comparisons (if any) ??? I
might have missed many points of comparison/similarity.
At the risk of playing the devils advocate, if your target is ms windows
(seen your interest for vistadb), i found MS-Access a very
Hello
I was just comparing embedded SQL database engines (SQLite Vs VistaDB) for
my knowledge. Itmight be of help for someone.
In case, someone might be interested to know and/or add more feature
comparisons.
SQLite
HomePage : www.sqlite.org
More Features : www.sqlite.org,
18 matches
Mail list logo
