World: r3wp
[SQLite] C library embeddable DB .
older newer | first last |
Oldes 17-Mar-2009 [926x2] | I think the library calls are not enabled in linux version of Core.. ask Carl. |
Or you can use Rebpro from Rebol's SDK | |
Janko 17-Mar-2009 [928x2] | Oldes: yes, it looks that way by the error given |
I am an new/old user so I am still on free versions of rebol.. I gues now is time to buy the SDK | |
Oldes 17-Mar-2009 [930x4] | I think you don't need the license |
just download it and try it | |
http://www.rebol.net/builds/#section-1 | |
At least what I was trying, there was the license message on boot, but I could use the /library | |
Janko 17-Mar-2009 [934x3] | hu, I never saw that download page :) |
wow.. first rebol download > 1MB :) | |
aha.. I am getting somewhere .. it alows it now but I get some error with .so .. maybe this is the reason cheyenne can't open it either >> do %sqlite.r Script: "SQLite driver" (26-Nov-2008) REBOL - Security Check: Script requests permission to open a port for read/write on: libsqlite3.so Yes, allow all, no, or quit? (Y/A/N/Q) Y ** Access Error: Cannot open sqlite3_prepare_v2 ** Near: *prepare: make routine! [db [integer!] dbq [string!] len [integer!] stmt [struct! [[integer!]]] dummy [struct! [[integer.. | |
Oldes 17-Mar-2009 [937x2] | you have to start it with the -s switch and good is to use the -q switch as well. |
http://www.rebol.com/docs/words/wusage.html | |
Janko 17-Mar-2009 [939x5] | -s probably means without asking for permissions... I tried now rebpro -s -q but I got the same .so error .. maybe I didn't prepare the .so files well ..I am just looking into docs >> do %sqlite.r ** Access Error: Cannot open sqlite3_prepare_v2 ** Near: *prepare: make routine! [db [integer!] dbq [string!] len [integer!] stmt [struct! [[integer!]]] dummy [struct! [[integer... |
when I installed sqlite with apt-get install sqlite3 I got 2 files into /usr/lib/ directory ./usr/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6 and ./usr/lib/libsqlite3.so.0 ... if I run rebol it doesn't find sqlite so I copied one of them (I tried with both, they are of same size btw) to directory where rebol / rebpro and sqlite.r is and renamed it to libsqlite3.so and then it seems to find it ... now this is just common sense as I am not that experienced with this on linux | |
ah... I looked at history of this chat and saw that there is debian package libsqlite3-dev ... I installed this and now I have libsqlite3.so .. it seems rebpro finds it without copying it to local directory now but it still gibes the same " Cannot open sqlite3_prepare_v2" error | |
ha.. I changed sqlite_prepare_v2 to sqlite_prepare in sqlite.r and now rebpro and cheyenne work!! | |
I hope this doesn't mean I something else won't work as it should | |
Dockimbel 17-Mar-2009 [944] | Have your application execute the following SQL statement and then look at the result : select sqlite_version(); AFAICT, sqlite3_prepare_v2 is available starting from SQLite 3.5.2. |
Janko 17-Mar-2009 [945] | aha.. stupid me.. apt-get usually doesn't provide latest versions but a more "stable" ones ... yes it's 3.3.8 |
Dockimbel 17-Mar-2009 [946] | You don't need to use apt-get for sqlite, just download the latest library and put it in your app folder near sqlite.r : http://www.sqlite.org/sqlite-3.6.11.so.gz (I guess you'll need to rename it to libsqlite3.so). |
Janko 17-Mar-2009 [947] | thanks Doc! |
amacleod 1-Apr-2009 [948] | I did not realize sqlite.r was set up to use mysql3.so (linux libs) Got my app running on linux witout a hitch... Auto detects OS...great! |
Janko 11-Apr-2009 [949] | this might be usefull to users of sqlite.. I yesterday encountered the "db is locked" error and it got me a little worried, but with this (simple) aproach it seems to solve that http://itsystementwicklung.de/pipermail/list-pysqlite/2009-April/000380.html |
Janko 14-Apr-2009 [950x2] | . |
I don't get this ... I started getting very long loading times with my webapp when I changed or inserted the and it was very fast before ... now I saw that it's the sqlite making these delays.. this is not the problem of sqlite.r but the sqlite itself because I get the same behaviour with sqlite3 shell. But I can't believe this , I am certain I am doing something wrong.. I remember sqlite can handle GB of data and is very fast, but in my case... I have 183 rows in a simple 5 column table (db file is 10kb) .. if I do single update table X set y = ".." where Z = ".."; it takes like 3 seconds. This updates just 1 row out of 183. Does anyone have any idea? I tried to do the "Vacuum" command but it's the same after it. | |
Pekr 14-Apr-2009 [952] | can you post whole query? |
Janko 14-Apr-2009 [953x5] | I also added the indexes now and it is maybe a little faster but on single where but on both that I need it looks more or less the same (select by same condition is imeddiate) |
Pekr.. I will | |
This is a very small VPS, but I have 300kb raw rebol data structures in ordinary files, and I edit and seek them without any indexes and it works immediatelly.. I only moved this part of data to sqlite because it handeles the file locking ( these are sort of mailboxes so that the app and bots can communicate over them ) | |
CREATE TABLE [domains] ( [id] INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, [domain] VARCHAR NOT NULL, [user] VARCHAR NOT NULL, [processed] DATETIME NULL, [ok_count] INT NOT NULL DEFAULT 0, [fail_count] INT NOT NULL DEFAULT 0, [error] TEXT NULL ) test query is as straighforward as it can be: update domains set user = "u3" where domain = "www.todelete.com" and user = "u3"; | |
I tried now with transaction .. it has no point here becauase it's just one query at the time ... but results were as expected.. update did finish imediatelly , but commit took the 1-3s time also | |
Pekr 14-Apr-2009 [958x2] | try to index domain, and maybe even user fields, or it will go sequentially thru all of record lines ... |
btw - why do you set user="u3" for records, where user is already of "u3" value? | |
Janko 14-Apr-2009 [960x4] | Because times vary from 1s to 5s I suspect taht vps's disk or something might be a little owerburdened, but as I said 300kb rebol (this is 10kb) worked im ms range according to cheyenne |
u3 is just here for testing purposes, so I can repeat the query :) | |
I added the indexes to both, and each separate .. but it's roghly the same ... before indexes select returned imediatelly on the same where | |
I will insert random rows so I will have couple of 1000 , and then I will see what I get | |
Pekr 14-Apr-2009 [964] | OK, index you ID field, then also user and domain field |
Janko 14-Apr-2009 [965] | I did before when trying stuff index|dom_user|domains|11|CREATE INDEX dom_user on domains ( domain, user ) index|dom1|domains|16|CREATE INDEX dom1 on domains ( domain ) index|user1|domains|21|CREATE INDEX user1 on domains ( user ) |
Pekr 14-Apr-2009 [966x3] | I would left out first index and add index for your primary key .... (not sure though :-) |
simply put - how db chooses, which index to use? You have them separate as well as mixed. I would use mixed index (domain,user) only if those two fields would be defined as a primary key together ... | |
... well, I am not good at sql internals, so .... try various combinations, and you'll see .. | |
Janko 14-Apr-2009 [969x4] | but I am sure even if I write that data inf ile as rebol blocks and load and foreach them to find the one it would take far less than 1s , it's just 180 rows!!!! :) |
(maybe I just need a better VPS) | |
hm.. very interesting results... and positive basically :) with 4000 records insert time, and update time for the same query is just the same as with 183 , and select is fast as before... then it's survivable .. I was afraid that if with so few rows it's so bad with couple more it will be unworkable | |
have to go..storm | |
sqlab 14-Apr-2009 [973] | If you update an index field, the index too has to be updated. Do you open and close your db, as it is recommended in the link you posted? Then you have to add the time for that too. |
Janko 14-Apr-2009 [974] | I had it without indexes at first , and later added indexes while I was trying various things, at 180 records there wasn't any noticable change. Well the result doesn't seem so bad to me right now.. if it has the same delay with 4000 records it's okey-ish. On my local computer which is much better than some small VPS I noticed no delays. I just realized that the delay at web-app was 3x bigger than this because I have 3 bots and each has it's own "mailbox" ... The solution for this situation will be affloading the inserts from the request process, for the future when things will need to scale up I will try doing this different anyway, that's why I was playing with actor like systems anyway |
Oldes 14-Apr-2009 [975] | 1s to 5s on 180 rows is bad. whatever you do. |
older newer | first last |