> On Mar 15, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Jay Kreibich wrote:
>
> Recognize the fact that if you’re storing data in a JSON string, to the
> database that is just one single value: a string.
I am very well aware of that. What _I_ (and my co-workers) are implementing is
a higher-level database layer* th
> On Mar 15, 2018, at 12:33 PM, Jens Alfke wrote:
>
> I'm wondering what the best way is to efficiently search for data values that
> can appear multiple times in a table row. SQLite indexes, even expression
> indexes, don't directly work for this because they obviously only index one
> value
I'm wondering what the best way is to efficiently search for data values that
can appear multiple times in a table row. SQLite indexes, even expression
indexes, don't directly work for this because they obviously only index one
value per row. Traditional relational-database design says to normal
to:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] Im
Auftrag von Hamish Allan
Gesendet: Montag, 03. April 2017 16:24
An: SQLite mailing list
Betreff: Re: [sqlite] Indexing WHERE with GROUP BY and ORDER BY
Thanks, Hick. I now understand that it's undefined which value is selected from
the bare column.
t;
> The former returns all groups of c with the top one being the one row
> returned by the latter.
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org]
>> On Behalf Of Hamish Allan
>> Sent: Monday, 3 April, 2017 0
uery above, the value of the "b"
> column in the output will be the value of the "b" column in the input row
> that has the largest "c" value. There is still an ambiguity if two or more of
> the input rows have the same minimum or maximum value or if the query
DER BY?
>>>>
>>>> The value of a used for the order by is from some random row in the
>>>> grouping of c. Are there relationships between a, b, c, d that you have
>>>> not
>>>> documented nor told us about?
>>>>
>>
being the one row returned
by the latter.
> -Original Message-
> From: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org]
> On Behalf Of Hamish Allan
> Sent: Monday, 3 April, 2017 02:51
> To: SQLite mailing list
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Indexing WHERE with GRO
sers [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] Im
Auftrag von Hamish Allan
Gesendet: Montag, 03. April 2017 10:51
An: SQLite mailing list
Betreff: Re: [sqlite] Indexing WHERE with GROUP BY and ORDER BY
Ah. My purpose is to determine "d for the most recent c with b=1", with "mo
The order by is useless.
-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users
[mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org]
On Behalf Of Hamish Allan
Sent: Sunday, 2 April, 2017 17:28
To: sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
Subject: [sqlite] Indexing WHERE with GROUP BY and ORDER BY
Given a ta
sqlite.org]
On Behalf Of Hamish Allan
Sent: Sunday, 2 April, 2017 17:28
To: sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
Subject: [sqlite] Indexing WHERE with GROUP BY and ORDER BY
Given a table:
CREATE TABLE x (a INT, b INT, c TEXT, d TEXT);
the query:
SELECT d FROM x WHERE b = 1 GROUP BY c ORDER BY a;
>> -Original Message-
>> From: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org]
>> On Behalf Of Hamish Allan
>> Sent: Sunday, 2 April, 2017 17:28
>> To: sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
>> Subject: [sqlite] Indexing WHERE with GROUP BY and ORDER B
On 3 Apr 2017, at 12:27am, Hamish Allan wrote:
> SELECT d FROM x WHERE b = 1 GROUP BY c ORDER BY a;
Your problem comes down to this:
If you are GROUPing BY c, why do you want ORDER BY a ?
If you remove the "ORDER BY a" clause then the ideal index would be on (b, c).
But to deal with the ORD
.
> -Original Message-
> From: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org]
> On Behalf Of Hamish Allan
> Sent: Sunday, 2 April, 2017 17:28
> To: sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
> Subject: [sqlite] Indexing WHERE with GROUP BY and ORDER BY
I had nearly the same question a month ago (Subject: Index usefulness for GROUP
BY). In my case, the best index was on the WHERE clause because it eliminated
the scan and returned only the few important rows for the other clauses.
However, the best result will depend on how many rows are elimi
Given a table:
CREATE TABLE x (a INT, b INT, c TEXT, d TEXT);
the query:
SELECT d FROM x WHERE b = 1 GROUP BY c ORDER BY a;
shows the following plan, without indexes:
0|0|0|SCAN TABLE x
0|0|0|USE TEMP B-TREE FOR GROUP BY
0|0|0|USE TEMP B-TREE FOR ORDER BY
I can create an index to cover the WH
Hi,
Can I create INDEX for the particular column when database journal mode
is WAL?
Any impact If I INDEXed database with some triggers?
Thanks in advance.
Best Regards,
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Durga D wrote:
> Thank you Kees.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Kees Nuyt
Thank you Kees.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Kees Nuyt wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:02:03 +0400, Durga D wrote:
>
> >Hi All,
> >
> >Somehow "original author" missed one INTETER column as searchable
> >field ( like unique or primary key) in the table. When execute queries
> >based on t
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:02:03 +0400, Durga D wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>Somehow "original author" missed one INTETER column as searchable
>field ( like unique or primary key) in the table. When execute queries
>based on this integer field in where clause/joins, huge performance hit.
>So, I am planning
Hi All,
Somehow "original author" missed one INTETER column as searchable
field ( like unique or primary key) in the table. When execute queries
based on this integer field in where clause/joins, huge performance hit.
So, I am planning to add INDEXING for this integer column.
Is there an
On Mar 7, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> The beauty of SQL (not just SQLite but any SQL database engine) is that you
> can focus on the semantics of your query and not worry about the
> implementation - the SQL database engine will figure out the best query
> algorithm for you.
Ah, yes
On 7 Mar 2011, at 11:07am, J Trahair wrote:
> Picking one of my tables at random (the first one, in fact):
> CREATE TABLE CostItems(
> RecNo INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
> CustomerCode TEXT,
> ProjectName TEXT,
> SupplierName TEXT,
> WhatExactly TEXT,
> CostDate TEXT
> etc.
> );
>
> I have
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:07 AM, J Trahair
wrote:
>
> Questions:
> 1. Do the differing orders of fields in the 2 SELECTs require me to use 2
> indexes as above?
>
You'll need two indices if you want your two SELECTs to run efficiently.
And the two indices you propose seem correcct. But it has not
0 0 USE TEMP B-TREE FOR ORDER BY
When you see all your WHERE clause items in the USING INDEX reference and no
SCAN TABLES you're doing good.
Michael D. Black
Senior Scientist
NG Information Systems
Advanced Analytics Directorate
____
I have looked at some information on indexing, and watched a 44 minute
presentation by Dr Richard Hipp.
I looked at the project I am converting to SQLite, and I have identited all the
SELECTs for all the tables. They do not fall easily into the 'SELECT x, y, z
FROM Table1 WHERE w = 5 AND x = 6
I think you may use FTS3 extension. This is very fast for big tables
too. I did test about to 500 millions rows with UUIDs in FTS3 table
and results are fine. See as example test here:
http://book.mobigroup.ru/dir?name=web_project_DBMS/distributed_schema
Some result logs you can find in files perft
On 2 Aug 2010, at 5:31pm, Paul Sanderson wrote:
> I have a table with just a few columns, one is a SHA1 hash and the
> second an MD5, there are about 17 Million rows in the table
>
> if I create an index on the SHA1 column using "create index if not
> exists sha1index on hashtable(sha1)" the pro
Paul Sanderson wrote:
> I have a table with just a few columns, one is a SHA1 hash and the
> second an MD5, there are about 17 Million rows in the table
>
> if I create an index on the SHA1 column using "create index if not
> exists sha1index on hashtable(sha1)" the process takes about 3
> minute
I have a table with just a few columns, one is a SHA1 hash and the
second an MD5, there are about 17 Million rows in the table
if I create an index on the SHA1 column using "create index if not
exists sha1index on hashtable(sha1)" the process takes about 3
minutes, if I follow this immediately by
I have not done this, but if you have enough RAM available, you might
try putting your primary keys in a table in an in-memory database, and
test for existence there. That would allow you to enforce uniqueness
while postponing creation of the PK index on the disk table until after
the initial
> Also it's quite known that
> creating index after inserting all rows is much faster than creating
> index before that. So it can be even beneficial in inserting huge
> amount of rows somewhere in the middle of the work: first delete all
> indexes, then insert rows, then create indexes once more.
First of all you should write to sqlite-users mailing list, not sqlite-dev.
> Why is the indexing so slow and bogs down as we proceed with insertions ?
> Any suggestions ?
> Also, how could I improve performance ?
I can't say exactly why performance with index degrades so
significantly with the s
Alan Harris-Reid wrote:
> I have a table with a primary key field called artist_id, which is also
> marked as autoincrement. If I want an index on this field
You don't. There is already an index on this field. SQLite automatically
generates an index to enforce PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE constraints.
I have a table with a primary key field called artist_id, which is also
marked as autoincrement. If I want an index on this field (eg. to
improve performance when joining with other tables), do I have to index
it explicitly, or does the fact that it is already an autoincrement pk
field alread
"Nikolas Stevenson-Molnar"
wrote in message
news:f45a26bc-1ee8-4a72-a90a-77f40eef6...@evergreen.edu
> If I have the following table:
>
> CREATE TABLE stem(sid integer primary key, x double, y double, dbh
> double);
>
> ... is there any way I can create an index for the following query?
>
> SELECT
Hi all,
If I have the following table:
CREATE TABLE stem(sid integer primary key, x double, y double, dbh
double);
... is there any way I can create an index for the following query?
SELECT * FROM stem WHERE x + dbh > 20
Thanks!
_Nik
___
sqlite-use
hi,
i need some help to see if i understood the point about indexing.
if i have 2 tables. each table has 2 columns. and now i want to join those
tables through one column in each table:
example
T1
C1 C2
|
+--+
|
T2 |
C1 C2
let say the columns in question are C1(t1) and C2(t2)
first q
>>
>>
>>> kdb "select * from kfz where CRC32=-1509747892;"
>>> 48482364|48|0|0C|00|00|0||20|5B93|-1509747892|||0|GP-T 1006|0
>>> 20209667|20|1|3C|00|32|202880||99|4FBD|-1509747892|||0|FL-AK 98|1
>>> 20209667|20|1|3C|00|32|202880||99|4FBD|-1509747892|||0|FL-AK 98|1
>>
>> What could cause 48482364 t
"Marian Aldenhoevel"
wrote in
message news:49a65fac.5060...@mba-software.de
> I am having a strange problem with a sqlite3 database. See the
> following transcript:
>
>> sqlite3 kdb "select * from kfz where kfznr=48482364;"
>> 48482364|48|0|0C|00|00|0||20|5B93|1746294314|||0|GP-T 1006|0
>
> kfznr
Hi,
>> > CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS KFZ (
>
> Is that as reported by the command-line sqlite3 executable program, or
> is it from some script that you hope is the one that was used to create
> the table?
That is from the script I _know_ is the one that created the table. I
will send output f
On 26/02/2009 9:45 PM, John Machin wrote:
> On 26/02/2009 8:23 PM, Marian Aldenhoevel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am having a strange problem with a sqlite3 database. See the following
>> transcript:
>>
>> > sqlite3 kdb "select * from kfz where kfznr=48482364;"
>> > 48482364|48|0|0C|00|00|0||20|5B93|1
On 26/02/2009 8:23 PM, Marian Aldenhoevel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am having a strange problem with a sqlite3 database. See the following
> transcript:
>
> > sqlite3 kdb "select * from kfz where kfznr=48482364;"
> > 48482364|48|0|0C|00|00|0||20|5B93|1746294314|||0|GP-T 1006|0
>
> kfznr is the prima
Hi,
I am having a strange problem with a sqlite3 database. See the following
transcript:
> sqlite3 kdb "select * from kfz where kfznr=48482364;"
> 48482364|48|0|0C|00|00|0||20|5B93|1746294314|||0|GP-T 1006|0
kfznr is the primary key, so this is to be expected. Now two queries as
fired from t
Hello,
i'm quite new to programmind with databases...
I'll try to explain my Problem on a symplified example:
I have Two Tables with large amount of data:
CREATE TABLE "tabelle1" (
"id" INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
"wert" INTEGER
)
CREATE TABLE "tabelle2" (
"id" INTEGER PRIMAR
EX1_SORT between rowid "minrow" (5) and "maxrow" (7)
> - For each line, use the given file offset to locate the real data in the
> custom file format file.
> - Read 3 records at fileoffet = 45,69,94 and return them to SQLite.
>
> I really feel like all this is not ver
Nobody? Did I make myself clear or do you need more (or maybe less!)
explanations?
Thanks,
Aladdin
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 16:41:49 +0200
> Subject: [sqlite] Indexing virtual tables
>
>
> Hi! Here is what I'
94 and return them to SQLite.
I really feel like all this is not very optimal.
What is the best strategy to achieve optimal speed and needed storage?
Am I missing a trivial point?
Thank you for any help on that!
Aladdin
> Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 15:37:22 -0700
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: sql
On May 16, 2008, at 5:04 PM, Jay A. Kreibich wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 04:44:10PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] scratched on
> the wall:
>> Sorry if this is a silly question - I don't have much experience with
>> databases.
>>
>> Say I have a table with many (millions+) of rows and I have a q
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 04:44:10PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] scratched on the
wall:
> Sorry if this is a silly question - I don't have much experience with
> databases.
>
> Say I have a table with many (millions+) of rows and I have a query:
>
> SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE some_condition ORDER
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> My real question is if there is an efficient way to index the results
> of such a query. In other words, I'm looking for rows N through N+100
> of the result. Can I do much better than just executing the query and
> throwing away the f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sorry if this is a silly question - I don't have much experience with
> databases.
>
> Say I have a table with many (millions+) of rows and I have a query:
>
> SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE some_condition ORDER BY rowid
>
> First, I'm assuming that in addition to whate
Sorry if this is a silly question - I don't have much experience with
databases.
Say I have a table with many (millions+) of rows and I have a query:
SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE some_condition ORDER BY rowid
First, I'm assuming that in addition to whatever time some_condition
takes, I'll see
I'm not quite clear on your question - why wouldn't you just create
any indices you need within the virtual-table implementation itself?
Sort of like how fts uses SQLite tables to implement data-storage for
the full-text index.
-scott
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Aladdin Lampé <[EMAIL PROTEC
Just thinking again about indexing strategies on virtual tables, I'm wondering
why virtual tables could not be indexed using the "normal" SQLite command
"INDEX". Indeed, I just expected that the data inside the column of the virtual
table could be sequentially scanned (using the "xColumn" callb
From: Dennis Cote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, that's not true. A sub-query is like any other query. I have
> rearranged the query to make it more readable.
>
> select types.Track,types.URL
> from ALBUM
> inner join (select * from MUSIC where Artist_Id =?) as types
> on ALBUM
dcharno wrote:
>> select types.Track,types.URL from ALBUM inner join (select * from MUSIC
>> where Artist_Id =?) types on ALBUM.AlbumId=types.Album_Id order by
>> ALBUM.YomiAlbumName ;
>
> How does the subquery work in this statement? I thought subqueries
> could only retrieve a single column.
> select types.Track,types.URL from ALBUM inner join (select * from MUSIC
> where Artist_Id =?) types on ALBUM.AlbumId=types.Album_Id order by
> ALBUM.YomiAlbumName ;
How does the subquery work in this statement? I thought subqueries
could only retrieve a single column.
Hi,
I am having 4 records in my database.
I am using Joins method.
My Table Looks like:
"PRAGMA encoding = UTF16;"
"CREATE TABLE ALBUMARTIST (AlbumArtistId INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
AlbumArtistName TEXT NOT NULL COLLATE NOCASE, YomiAlbumArtistName TEXT NOT
NULL, UNIQUE (AlbumArtistName
On Feb 13, 2008 1:01 PM, Kasper Daniel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you for a clear and precise answer.
>
> I seem to recall that it is possible to have in-memory databases with
> sqlite. But perhaps that is only possible with alot of tinkering and
> using the C functions. Is that true
On Feb 13, 2008, at 11:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Kasper Daniel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have a table with two variables, say A and B (both integers). The
>> table is rather large - around 2.9 GB on disk. Every combination of
>> (A,B) occurs only once. I am creating a unique i
Kasper Daniel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a table with two variables, say A and B (both integers). The
> table is rather large - around 2.9 GB on disk. Every combination of
> (A,B) occurs only once. I am creating a unique index as
>CREATE UNIQUE INDEX ABidx ON abtable (A,B)
>
I have a table with two variables, say A and B (both integers). The
table is rather large - around 2.9 GB on disk. Every combination of
(A,B) occurs only once. I am creating a unique index as
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX ABidx ON abtable (A,B)
It seems that the (A,B) index is created much slower than
folks, I have never worked with BLOBs, but am now going to. Feel a bit nervous.
The way I understand it, our favorite db breaks a BLOB into its
predetermined chunks (4096 bytes or whatever) and figures out how and
where to store them. We just ask it to put in the BLOB or take out the
BLOB, and SQL
On May 10, 2007, at 11:08 PM, Juri Wichanow wrote:
For "create index.." in large database : "pragma
default_cache_size = 2000;"
For "select ..." -- "pragma default_cache_size = 1200;"
Hmm, quite interesting.
I would like to share my naive observations, which led me to believe
the c
For "create index.." in large database : "pragma default_cache_size = 2000;"
For "select ..." -- "pragma default_cache_size = 1200;"
Juri
Kasper Daniel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Having said that, I can understand that sorting and disk cache and so
> on factors in - but my initial database is already very large (1.3GB
> - 145.000.000 milion rows), and surely that disk cache would already
> factor in at that stage?
>
On May 10, 2007, at 3:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kasper Daniel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi
We are using SQLite for a fairly big (but simple) calculation, and
have some problems when creating an index on a database with
600.000.000 rows. Specifically it has not ended even after 5
Kasper Daniel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> We are using SQLite for a fairly big (but simple) calculation, and
> have some problems when creating an index on a database with
> 600.000.000 rows. Specifically it has not ended even after 5 days of
> running. We have done it success
Hi
We are using SQLite for a fairly big (but simple) calculation, and
have some problems when creating an index on a database with
600.000.000 rows. Specifically it has not ended even after 5 days of
running. We have done it successfully on 25% of the full data base,
and are now wondering
Hi,
Fascinating, thanks!! :-)
Indeed this query does use the optimizer. :-) If I understand, by
rewriting the query to have an AND statement at the top level and
getting a simple comparison over to the left we can utilize the index.
*cheers*
Ben
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SELECT name
FR
Ben Supnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Y'all,
>
> Is there a compact way (or is it even possible) to use multiple columns
> (that I have in my order-by clause) for an operator like > or >=?
>
> I have a database of airports, something like this:
>
> create table airports(
>id integer pr
Hi Y'all,
Is there a compact way (or is it even possible) to use multiple columns
(that I have in my order-by clause) for an operator like > or >=?
I have a database of airports, something like this:
create table airports(
id integer primary key,
name varchar not null);
create index tabl
"Igor Tandetnik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dixon Hutchinson
> wrote:
> > Sorry, meant to include a reference to 'p' in my select:
> > SELECT * FROM foo WHERE bar LIKE 'something' AND p='some_int';
>
> An expression involving LIKE cannot use an index anyway.
This is mostly true, but there are
--- Andrew McCollum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am building a very large (> 500M rows, ~6 GB) sqlite database that has
> three integer columns. I find that inserting all the rows takes only a
> couple hours, but when I try to create an index on any of the columns the
> process will run for days
Hello,
I am building a very large (> 500M rows, ~6 GB) sqlite database that has
three integer columns. I find that inserting all the rows takes only a
couple hours, but when I try to create an index on any of the columns the
process will run for days without finishing.
If the entire operation ca
On 2/7/06, chetana bhargav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am sure that this question would have been asked many times earlier also.
> I am new to
> this list, can any one point me about some info on indexing in SQLite. The
> time efficiency
> and space it requires. Some Do's and Dont's about in
Hi,
I am sure that this question would have been asked many times earlier also. I
am new to this list, can any one point me about some info on indexing in
SQLite. The time efficiency and space it requires. Some Do's and Dont's about
indexing.
Thanks for the help in advance.
Is it possible to have searchable data type with indexed access in sqlite?
I am looking for something similar to tsearch2
(http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/postgres/gist/tsearch/V2/)
TIA!
are/are not present, which I think is a good sign.
-Tom
> -Original Message-
> From: Ted Unangst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 1:28 PM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Indexing problem
>
> Thomas Briggs wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 10:27 -0700, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Two tables in a where can use two indices in sqlite?
>
Correct. SQLite (and every other SQL RDBMS that I know
of) uses as many as but no more than one index per table
in a join. If the same table is used more than once in
a join, then each
Thomas Briggs wrote:
I think the common misconception is that indexes on multiple
individual columns can be used in conjunction with one another, which
isn't the case (unless you're talking about bitmap indexes, but since
SQLite doesn't have those, we clearly aren't :P). Once you get
comfortabl
Thank you for spelling out that only one index can be
used per query - probably a basic principle for sqlite
experts, but one that had passed me by!
The following tuning guide mentions that "if there is
a choice of indexes, the query optimizer may make a
bad choice":
http://web.utk.edu/~jplyon/sq
> I was puzzled that removing the single-column index on
> Season actually enabled the original query to
> complete, having read somewhere in the sqlite docs
> that indexing columns used in WHERE conditions
> improves performance. Is this something to do with the
That's a true statement in ge
Season)
on the YM203 table
would make a huge difference in how this query will
perform, I think.
-Tom
> -Original Message-
> From: John Proudlove [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 10:26 AM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: [sqlite] Indexing
; -Original Message-
> From: John Proudlove [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 10:26 AM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: [sqlite] Indexing problem
>
> Hello,
>
> Can anyone shed light on the following problem,
> experienced
Hello,
Can anyone shed light on the following problem,
experienced with the SQLite command line utility
(v3.0.8) on Solaris/SPARC?
The query below hangs (fails to complete within 5
minutes) using the indices shown, but after removing
the index on the Season column (used in the WHERE
condition), i
Hi,
this is the exact table definition:
create table wordlinks (
id integer primary key,
document integer,
docword integer,
count integer
)
in fact i wouldn't need the primary key. i need an index on docword and
rene wrote:
My questions are:
*is this a bug?
*why does indexing take that long?
*will it be fixed in 3.0?
*should i consider using embedded mysql instead (not tested that if it got better performance
though)?
*would it help if i create a seperate database for this particulair table? (there is ab
Hi,
well, i put most things in transactions, but in this case that wouldn't make a
difference.
the query was simply:
create index idx_linktable on linktable (wid)
that ran for hours and hours on the huge table until i killed it, or with benchmarks
as described
in previous post on the tables w
...
> now, i tried to put the index on the table afterwards. i tried this when
> the table was real big
> (600Mb, about 40.000.000 rows).. After six hours, sqlite had read and
> wrote 150Gb (!) to disk
> (that is: reading 150Gb, writing 150Gb according to windows taskman) the
> job still wasn't don
Hi,
i have the following problem: in my database is one specific table that gets quite a
lot of
inserts..the table consist only of a primary key and three integer values. I need to
index, besides
the primary table, 2 more columns on the table. there is no option to put a 'unique'
index.
if i p
91 matches
Mail list logo