[sqlite] CREATE IF NOT EXISTS and locks

When a statement of the form: CREATE TABLE xxx IF NOT EXISTS what sort of locking overhead is incurred in the case where the table already exists? Regards, Iker -- Iker Arizmendi e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: ikerariz.blogspot.com

[sqlite] sqlite3 connect spawns additional thread

by a matching pthread_join - where does the extra thread come from? Regards, Iker -- Iker Arizmendi e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: ikerariz.blogspot.com

Re: [sqlite] sqlite3 connect spawns additional thread

My version of Linux is still using LinuxThreads (as opposed to NPTL) - I guess that extra thread is the "manager" thread. Iker On 7/12/06, Iker Arizmendi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Using pysqlite2 I noticed (using ps) that whenever I connected to a database for the first time

[sqlite] FTS3: custom tokenizer filter over built-in tokenizer (resend)

in adopting? Regards, Iker -- Iker Arizmendi AT Labs - Research Speech and Image Processing Lab ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

[sqlite] FTS3: custom tokenizer filter over built-in tokenizer

in adopting? Regards, Iker -- Iker Arizmendi AT Labs - Research Speech and Image Processing Lab e: i...@research.att.com w: http://research.att.com p: 973-360-8516 ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman

[sqlite] FTS3 bug?

The function that opens a cursor for the simple tokenizer, simpleOpen, does not set the "pTokenizer" member of the returned cursor. Ie, it appears the following line is missing: c->base.pTokenizer = pTokenizer; which causes problems in simpleNext . Possible bug? Regards, I

Re: [sqlite] FTS3 bug?

Dan Kennedy wrote: > On 12/08/2010 04:18 AM, Iker Arizmendi wrote: >> The function that opens a cursor for the simple tokenizer, >> simpleOpen, does not set the "pTokenizer" member of the >> returned cursor. Ie, it appears the following line is >> m

[sqlite] FTS slowdown with matchinfo

hits") but it's not clear why this should take so long. Any ideas on what might be causing the slowdown? Thanks, Iker -- Iker Arizmendi AT Labs - Research Speech and Image Processing Lab e: i...@research.att.com w: http://research.att.com p: 973-360-8516 __

Re: [sqlite] FTS slowdown with matchinfo

Dan Kennedy wrote: > > Can you make the database available for download? And > supply the exact query you are using too? I'd like to > know why this is. Thanks. > > Dan. > You can find a tarball of the DB file here: http://www.research.att.com/people/Arizmendi_Iker/geo.db.tgz This query

Re: [sqlite] FTS slowdown with matchinfo

Dan Kennedy wrote: > On 02/17/2011 05:41 AM, Iker Arizmendi wrote: >> Dan Kennedy wrote: >>> Can you make the database available for download? And >>> supply the exact query you are using too? I'd like to >>> know why this is. Thanks. >>> >>>

[sqlite] server process gives better concurrency - why?

-- Iker Arizmendi AT Labs - Research Speech and Image Processing Lab w: http://research.att.com ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] server process gives better concurrency - why?

the tools you're using, not around some mythical idea of > the perfect generic SQL engine. > > Simon. -- Iker Arizmendi AT Labs - Research Speech and Image Processing Lab e: i...@research.att.com w: http://research.att.com p: 973-360-8516 _

Re: [sqlite] server process gives better concurrency - why?

processes without burdening the common case. But assuming it did, is this the main obstacle? Iker Igor Tandetnik wrote: > Iker Arizmendi wrote: >> The question is whether a client-server design is /necessary/ to >> efficiently implement higher concurrency. It appears to be easier

Re: [sqlite] server process gives better concurrency - why?

gi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users -- Iker Arizmendi AT Labs - Research Speech and Image Processing Lab e: i...@research.att.com w: http://research.att.com p: 973-360-8516 ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users

Re: [sqlite] server process gives better concurrency - why?

ted > to page locking, table locking etc. > > Google MVCC... > > --- On Tue, 9/8/09, Iker Arizmendi <i...@research.att.com> wrote: > >> From: Iker Arizmendi <i...@research.att.com> >> Subject: Re: [sqlite] server process gives better concurrency - why? &g

Re: [sqlite] server process gives better concurrency - why?

ion is useless because all these features are not implementable > on top of SQLite and are way nontrivial to implement inside SQLite... > > Pavel -- Iker Arizmendi AT Labs - Research Speech and Image Processing Lab ___ sqlite-users mailing li

Re: [sqlite] server process gives better concurrency - why?

along with fine-grained locks using just > file system locking as SQLite does now. > > Pavel > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Iker Arizmendi <i...@research.att.com> wrote: >> I'm hopeful that it's possible to devise a scheme that will let SQLite >> suppor

Re: [sqlite] server process gives better concurrency - why?

based locks suffers from this drawback. Perhaps the locking scheme could be offered as a compile time option or left to the application as a pragma at the cost of making things a bit less "zero-conf". Iker -- Iker Arizmendi AT Labs - Resear

Re: [sqlite] server process gives better concurrency - why?

Simon Slavin wrote: > On 10 Sep 2009, at 12:02am, Iker Arizmendi wrote: > >> The assumption being that a lock facility that can handle these issues >> is needed by any concurrency scheme (MVCC, shadow pages, etc) and so >> can >> be thought about independently

[sqlite] concurrent DB creation

-- Iker Arizmendi e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: ikerariz.blogspot.com