Re: [sqlite] sqlite3_get_table() vs sqlite3_step

Hi Igor, No, no... I really meant a roundtrips to disk. So, while sqlite3_get_table() seemed like a faster but memory hungry mechanism to retrieve the result set, sqlite3_step() seemed that it would take longer, especially in disk-based systems, but more memory-efficient. Thanks for pointing

Re: [sqlite] sqlite3_get_table() vs sqlite3_step

Thanks a lot Max! -- Tito On 21 Nov 2010, at 14:04, Max Vlasov wrote: > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Tito Ciuro wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Sounds like sqlite3_get_table() would take less time to access the storage >> subsystem as opposed to

Re: [sqlite] sqlite3_get_table() vs sqlite3_step

Tito Ciuro wrote: > Let me start by saying that I'm aware that sqlite3_get_table() should not be > used (as per the documentation). I'm curious about > one thing though: if the computer/device has sufficient memory to hold the > result set returned by sqlite3_get_table(),

Re: [sqlite] sqlite3_get_table() vs sqlite3_step

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Tito Ciuro wrote: > Hello, > > Sounds like sqlite3_get_table() would take less time to access the storage > subsystem as opposed to sqlite_step() with multiple roundtrips, at the > expense of using lots more RAM, of course. So assuming RAM wasn't

[sqlite] sqlite3_get_table() vs sqlite3_step

Hello, Let me start by saying that I'm aware that sqlite3_get_table() should not be used (as per the documentation). I'm curious about one thing though: if the computer/device has sufficient memory to hold the result set returned by sqlite3_get_table(), wouldn't it be more optimized