> I considered that as well, but it's not clear how much benefit you get > over the autoincrement scheme: the PK-index is there either way, so > that's not a slowdown. The split table approach also makes > query-writing and indexing more complex, so at a minimum you'd probably > want to make a view that runs a UNION ALL on the two tables.
Whatever for? One table contains the data, the other contains the rowids from the first table that require updating. You would not be able to UNION (ALL or otherwise) the rows from the two tables -- they are entirely different. --- () ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
