As Igor says, it's most likely the way you're creating your SQL query. For example, if you're using C/C++ and you're trying to write a 64 bit number to a string using the %d flag in sprintf(), if won't work properly - you'd need to use %I64d for 64 bit numbers.
32-bit integers go up to (unsigned) 4,294,967,296, or (signed) +/-2,147,483,648 - any higher and it's a 64 bit number. For info, 64 bit integers go up to (unsigned) 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (20 digits) or (signed) +/-9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (19 digits). Thanks, Nick. -----Original Message----- From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Igor Tandetnik Sent: 26 November 2009 15:22 To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org Subject: Re: [sqlite] Huge Table with only one field -- efficientway to create index ? Thomas Lenders wrote: > I tried creating the field as INTEGER, but 10 digit numbers where > imported as 0. SQLite uses 64-bit integers, for about 19 decimal digits. The problem must be with the software that populates the table. > I assume the field was created as 32 bit integer and invalid entries got > a default value. SQLite doesn't distinguish between 32-bit and 64-bit integers. There's nothing special you have to put into CREATE TABLE statement to enable 64-bit integers - they just work. > I also tried LONGINT, BIGINT and INT64 but no joy. What would be the > correct syntax for > longer ints ? Like I said, no special syntax is needed. Igor Tandetnik _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
