>> > 1) How "expensive" is a call to sqlite3_open. Does a call to >> sqlite3_enable_shared_cache make it "cheaper"? >> >>Its cost depends on the size of your schema as it gets parsed during >>open. > > Isn't this contradictory with an answer by Igor made in a recent thread?
It's not contradictory. I say that "real cost" of sqlite3_open is parsing the schema. Igor says that this cost is actually deferred from inside sqlite3_open call to the first "substantive" sqlite3_step call. So you will have to pay this price anyway, just profiler output would be somewhat confusing. Pavel On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Jean-Christophe Deschamps <j...@q-e-d.org> wrote: > Pavel, > >> > 1) How "expensive" is a call to sqlite3_open. Does a call to >> sqlite3_enable_shared_cache make it "cheaper"? >> >>Its cost depends on the size of your schema as it gets parsed during >>open. > > > Isn't this contradictory with an answer by Igor made in a recent thread? > >>Subject: Re: [sqlite] sqlite3_open on non-DB files / corrupt DBs >> >> >>Nick Shaw <nick.s...@citysync.co.uk> wrote: >> > Is there a reason that sqlite3_open() will happily "open" a non-sqlite >> > file, returning SQLITE_OK, instead of returning SQLITE_NOTADB, which >> > would seem a more obvious return value? >> >>SQLite doesn't actually touch the file until the first "substantive" >>statement is executed on the connection. This allows one to set >>various PRAGMAs that can only be set before the database is created. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
