On 27 Sep 2011 at 12:23, Simon Slavin <slav...@bigfraud.org> wrote: > On 27 Sep 2011, at 10:49am, Tim Streater wrote: > >> On 27 Sep 2011 at 00:19, Simon Slavin <slav...@bigfraud.org> wrote: >> >>> I believe that VACUUM is one of the statements which counts as changing the >>> schema, because it does its work by rewriting entire tables and/or indexes. >>> So don't do a VACUUM when you're doing multi-process access. Cut out the >>> VACUUMs and see whether you still get this result code. >> >> Ah, thanks, that's a good clue. I can do some work in that area to ensure >> that the VACUUMs are done at a quiet moment. > > You might not need VACUUM at all. I might use it just before I make a copy of > the database file for transfer or archive, if it was important to me that the > file was as small as possible. But I have quite a few databases I've never > bothered using VACUUM on at all. Most of them shrink only by small amounts > and probably start growing immediately afterwards anyway.
The databases that get vacuumed tend to have a fair amount of traffic in and out. So it's good to compress them from time to time. Not doing that when there is traffic has ended up being a couple of lines of PHP and a couple of lines of JavaScript, so if that avoids the issue in future I shall be well pleased. -- Cheers -- Tim
_______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
