Hello SQLite users,
Hello Dr. Hipp,
Since I'm beginning to like more and more sqlite, I'd like to bring my contribution to
it's development. For anyone interested, I have found a very interesting material
regarding 'Concurency Control and Recovery in Database Systems'.
I've browsed the docs
Hello SQLite users,
Hello Dr. Hipp,
I would like to implement my own RegExp functions (to limit results based on
conditions). From my understanding, sqlite_create_function cannot be used for this
(the function can only return a value; it cannot tell sqlite not to return a row).
What is the
George Ionescu wrote:
Hello SQLite users,
Hello Dr. Hipp,
I would like to implement my own RegExp functions (to limit results based on conditions). From my understanding, sqlite_create_function cannot be used for this (the function can only return a value; it cannot tell sqlite not to return a
Hi,
i have implemented a little wrapper around
sqlite to have a priority and timestamp sorted
persistent queue.
The code is only some small C files and should
compile on many OS. It is under LGPL (free for private
or commercial use).
The sqlite based persistent queue is hidden
behind an interface
I would like to use SQLite on a web server or .net remoting and
multi-user/threads may become an issue
as locking is based at the finest granularity of file locking instead of
table/page/row locking. Will this issue be resolved from 3.x onwards so that
concurrency can be increased when multiple
On Thu, 6 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>I would like to use SQLite on a web server or .net remoting and
>multi-user/threads may become an issue
>as locking is based at the finest granularity of file locking instead of
>table/page/row locking. Will this issue be resolved from 3.x onwards so
I am using SQLite expressly because of its type less data schema and large
text field support.
The application we have developed is using SQLite exactly as an embedded
database and would require
an extremely large re-write because of all the good features included in
SQLite. The ONLY feature
Christian Smith wrote:
>
> [U]se the right tool for the job. If you require concurrent
> readers/writer(s), then you may be better off using a full blown
> client/server database, especially in a distributed environment. SQLite is
> designed to be embedded, don't just use it because you can.
>
> > [U]se the right tool for the job. If you require concurrent
> > readers/writer(s), then you may be better off using a full blown
> > client/server database, especially in a distributed
> environment. SQLite is
> > designed to be embedded, don't just use it because you can.
> >
>
>
Thomas, Basil wrote:
> I am no technical expert but...could not page locking at least be implemented
> by the pager module to increase concurrency(very naive...but better than file
> locking).
>
Page-level locking will not help. For one thing, we cannot do both page-level
locking and
I'm testing sqlite on a network (Windows 2003 Server) share and with 5 users. I've
created a "server" program which is ran from the same directory as the shared
database. The program that the 5 users have, will read only from the sqlite database
in that directory. Whenever they want to add a
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Thomas, Basil wrote:
>I have already implemented a solution using the application using MS SQL
>Server/Sybase and
>SQLite is at least a hundred times faster. The problem is when implementing
>"long" transactions.
Can you not implement batching of writes into single small
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:54:24AM -0400, D. Richard Hipp wrote:
> Concurrency is not nearly as much an issue in reality
> as it is in many peoples imagination. Concurrency
> probably is not an issue for a website. If concurrency
> really is an issue, you need a client/server database.
While
Thanx
The main reason for file locking is to support win95/98/ME???...
I do have a server process running and have embedded sqlite to be used by
individual threads
that may be started. All writes currently go to one writer thread and this
seems to work fine.
The application we have developed
I've been watching the discussion about concurrency with interest. I find
I'm impressed by everybody's arguments.
I'd too would like to keep SQLite small and fast but equally, I'd like to
have better concurrency. Even if this is just a safeguard for the future.
However, I'm wondering why we're
I really like this answer!!!
The Goldilocks approach to increased concurrency...
Hopefully DRH will read your answer and conclude this would be a good
approach
as the current take it or leave it answers are no help.
Abandoning SQLite COMPLETELY for higher concurrency does not make sense but
a
top posting... views of another "arm-chair critic/desirer of features"
follow --
I too, like Basil Thomas, like Andrew's writeup. Well-reasoned.
Like it or not... all programs start simple and evolve to a level
unsupportable complicatedness until the developer's either lose
interest or the
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 06:24:10PM +0100, Steve O'Hara wrote:
> However, I'm wondering why we're comparing SQLite with kernel based RDBMS
> like Oracle etc, and not with it's more closely related cousins such as
> Access ?
In my case, because I am very familiar with Oracle, somewhat less so
with
In the spirit of discussion --
On May 6, 2004, at 1:08 PM, Andrew Piskorski wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 06:24:10PM +0100, Steve O'Hara wrote:
However, I'm wondering why we're comparing SQLite with kernel based
RDBMS
like Oracle etc, and not with it's more closely related cousins such
as
I conducted the following test using Perl, Benchmark.pm, and the
suitable db-related modules --
Created a table with two columns, id (number) and spellednumber
(varchar). Inserted 1 million rows, each row with id containing a serial
number starting at 1, and spellednumber containing the same
Here are the results with the best on top.
INSERT 1,000,000
db wallclock usr sys cpu rate filesize
SQLite 115.00 110.021.75 111.77 89.47 76,736
Bdb 266 90.92 32.67
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:21:28PM -0500, Puneet Kishor wrote:
> they are as real a database as one wants them to be. Sure, they don't
> support ACID compliance, but I am not sure if they are created by
Ugh, that particular argument is one I should not have started. My
apologies to all, and
On May 6, 2004, at 2:06 PM, Andrew Piskorski wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:21:28PM -0500, Puneet Kishor wrote:
they are as real a database as one wants them to be. Sure, they don't
support ACID compliance, but I am not sure if they are created by
Ugh, that particular argument is one I should
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:21:28PM -0500, Puneet Kishor wrote:
> Frankly, I am not sure if there is anything exciting left in relational
> databases to discover or create... most has been created and
> well-tested over the past 3 decades. What is left is making a tool
No way, that is not
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 03:20:13PM -0400, Andrew Piskorski wrote:
> - User defined types, aka good "object" support (Date's "Third
> Manifesto").
>
> - Native bi-temporal support, or even just good support for one of
> valid-time or transaction-time (Snodgrass). This one in particular I
> would
Hold up there trigger, I didn't mean for everyone to launch into a blow by
blow comparison of features between various RDBMS.
My point was that in terms of concurrency, how does SQLite compare with
other non-supervised databases technologies like JET (Access), Paradox etc.
That way, any criticism
26 matches
Mail list logo
