On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:42:21 -0800, rumours say that "EP"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> might have written:
>I tried this for one application under the Windows OS and it worked fine...
>
>until my records (text - maybe 50KB average) unexpectedly blossomed into the
>10,000-1,000,000 ranges. If I or someone
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:00:17 +0300, rumours say that Konstantin
Veretennicov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> might have written:
>On 6/21/05, Charles Krug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Related question:
>>
>> What if I need to create/modify MS-Access or SQL Server dbs?
>
>You could use ADO + adodbapi for
On 20 Jun 2005 11:43:28 -0700, rumours say that "Oren Tirosh"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> might have written:
>For very short keys and record (e.g. email addresses) you can use
>symbolic links instead of files. The advantage is that you have a
>single system call (readlink) to retrieve the contents of a l
I guess I use databases to store data ;-) and I do not wish to worry
about the type of data I'm storing. That's why I love to pickle.
I understand that during an optimization phase, decisions might be taken to
handle data otherwise.
Regards,
Philippe
GMane Python wrote:
> For my databa
GMane Python wrote:
> For my database, I have a table of user information with a unique
> identifier, and then I save to the filesystem my bitmap files, placing the
> unique identifier, date and time information into the filename. Why stick a
> photo into a database?
There are various possible re
For my database, I have a table of user information with a unique
identifier, and then I save to the filesystem my bitmap files, placing the
unique identifier, date and time information into the filename. Why stick a
photo into a database?
For instance:
User Table:
uniqueID: 0001
lNane: Rose
fNa
On 6/21/05, Charles Krug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Related question:
>
> What if I need to create/modify MS-Access or SQL Server dbs?
You could use ADO + adodbapi for both.
http://adodbapi.sourceforge.net/
- kv
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:42:21 -0800, EP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oren suggested:
>
>> How about using the filesystem as a database? For the number of records
>> you describe it may work surprisingly well. A bonus is that the
>> database is easy to manage manually.
>
> I tried this for one appl
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:42:21 -0800, EP wrote:
> until my records (text - maybe 50KB average) unexpectedly blossomed into
> the 10,000-1,000,000 ranges. If I or someone else (who innocently doesn't
> know better) opens up one of the directories with ~150,000 files in it,
> the machine's personalit
Oren suggested:
> How about using the filesystem as a database? For the number of records
> you describe it may work surprisingly well. A bonus is that the
> database is easy to manage manually.
I tried this for one application under the Windows OS and it worked fine...
until my records (text -
I am really surprised that someone hasn't mentioned Gadfly yet. It is a
quick, free, relational database written directly for Python itself.
http://gadfly.sourceforge.net/
Brian
---
Philippe C. Martin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for a stand-alone (not client/server) database solution for
>
Yes, I agree, but as most of the customer base I target uses the O/S that
cannot be named ;-) , file names could become a problem just as 'ln -s' is
out of the question.
Yet, this might be the best trade-off.
Regards,
Philippe
Oren Tirosh wrote:
> Philippe C. Martin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am
Philippe C. Martin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for a stand-alone (not client/server) database solution for
> Python.
>
> 1) speed is not an issue
> 2) I wish to store less than 5000 records
> 3) each record should not be larger than 16K
How about using the filesystem as a database? For the numbe
EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Philippe C. Martin
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 8:19 AM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Python choice of database
Hi,
I am looking for a stand-alone (not client/server) database solution for
Python.
1) speed is not an issue
2) I wish to store
Correct, that's not a constraint right now.
Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Philippe C. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1) speed is not an issue
>> 2) I wish to store less than 5000 records
>> 3) each record should not be larger than 16K
>
> You don't mention whether multiple running programs need
"Philippe C. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) speed is not an issue
> 2) I wish to store less than 5000 records
> 3) each record should not be larger than 16K
You don't mention whether multiple running programs need to use it
concurrently. That's usually done with client/server db's but i
Thanks, I'm looking at KirbyBase also but wonder if it can handle bitmaps (I
could always pickle it first I guess).
Regards,
Philippe
John Abel wrote:
> Philippe C. Martin wrote:
>
>>Thank you all for your answers.
>>
>>A pure Python would have beenmy first choice. yet I now feel I should
>>
> 1. 5000 files -- my personal favourite.
You got a point
William Park wrote:
> Philippe C. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am looking for a stand-alone (not client/server) database solution
>> for Python.
>>
>> 1) speed is not an issue
>> 2) I wish to store less than 5000
Philippe C. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for a stand-alone (not client/server) database solution
> for Python.
>
> 1) speed is not an issue
> 2) I wish to store less than 5000 records
> 3) each record should not be larger than 16K
>
> As I start with Python objects, I
OK, I'll try that too.
Regards,
Philippe
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Philippe C. Martin wrote:
>
>> You mean pickling a dictionnary of 5000/16K objects ?
>
> Yes. You said speed was not an issue; pickling only 5000 objects, each
> no more than 16 kB, is easily handled by any remotely modern
Philippe C. Martin wrote:
>Thank you all for your answers.
>
>A pure Python would have beenmy first choice. yet I now feel I should spend
>some time looking at PySQLite (I like the fact it's pre-compiled for
>Windows).
>
>Thanks.
>
>Philippe
>
>
>
>Philippe C. Martin wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I am
Philippe C. Martin wrote:
> You mean pickling a dictionnary of 5000/16K objects ?
Yes. You said speed was not an issue; pickling only 5000 objects, each
no more than 16 kB, is easily handled by any remotely modern machine
(and even plenty which are not very modern).
--
Erik Max Francis && [E
You mean pickling a dictionnary of 5000/16K objects ?
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Philippe C. Martin wrote:
>
>> Well that would be shelve I guess ... with the restrictions I mentioned.
>
> I was talking about pickle, not shelve.
>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Thank you all for your answers.
A pure Python would have beenmy first choice. yet I now feel I should spend
some time looking at PySQLite (I like the fact it's pre-compiled for
Windows).
Thanks.
Philippe
Philippe C. Martin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for a stand-alone (not client/server)
Philippe C. Martin wrote:
> Well that would be shelve I guess ... with the restrictions I mentioned.
I was talking about pickle, not shelve.
--
Erik Max Francis && [EMAIL PROTECTED] && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
I used to walk arou
Well that would be shelve I guess ... with the restrictions I mentioned.
Regards,
Philippe
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Philippe C. Martin wrote:
>
>> I am looking for a stand-alone (not client/server) database solution for
>> Python.
>>
>> 1) speed is not an issue
>> 2) I wish to store less t
John Abel wrote:
> Gadfly
> PySQLite ( requires SQLite library )
I want to clarify this parenthetical comment, for the record. When I
first downloaded PySQLite I had already gone and installed SQLite,
thinking it was a prerequisite in that sense.
In fact, the PySQLite install includes a .pyd w
Philippe C. Martin wrote:
> I am looking for a stand-alone (not client/server) database solution for
> Python.
>
> 1) speed is not an issue
> 2) I wish to store less than 5000 records
> 3) each record should not be larger than 16K
>
> As I start with Python objects, I thought of using shelve, but
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:18:58 GMT, "Philippe C. Martin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for a stand-alone (not client/server) database solution for
> Python.
>
> 1) speed is not an issue
> 2) I wish to store less than 5000 records
> 3) each record should not be larger than 16K
>
Philippe C. Martin wrote:
> I am looking for a stand-alone (not client/server) database solution for
> Python.
>
> 1) speed is not an issue
> 2) I wish to store less than 5000 records
> 3) each record should not be larger than 16K
>
>
> As I start with Python objects, I thought of using shelve,
Just thought of a couple more:
SnakeSQL
KirbyBase
J
John Abel wrote:
>Gadfly
>PySQLite ( requires SQLite library )
>
>J
>
>Philippe C. Martin wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I am looking for a stand-alone (not client/server) database solution for
>>Python.
>>
>>1) speed is not an issue
>>2) I wish to
Gadfly
PySQLite ( requires SQLite library )
J
Philippe C. Martin wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am looking for a stand-alone (not client/server) database solution for
>Python.
>
>1) speed is not an issue
>2) I wish to store less than 5000 records
>3) each record should not be larger than 16K
>
>
>As I start w
Hi,
I am looking for a stand-alone (not client/server) database solution for
Python.
1) speed is not an issue
2) I wish to store less than 5000 records
3) each record should not be larger than 16K
As I start with Python objects, I thought of using shelve, but looking at
the restrictions (record
33 matches
Mail list logo
