On 31/05/12 17:06, Jon Clements wrote:
On Thursday, 31 May 2012 16:25:10 UTC+1, duncan smith wrote:
On 31/05/12 06:15, John Nagle wrote:
On 5/30/2012 6:57 PM, duncan smith wrote:
Hello,
I have been attempting to speed up some code by using an sqlite
database, but I'm not getting the performan
On Thursday, 31 May 2012 16:25:10 UTC+1, duncan smith wrote:
> On 31/05/12 06:15, John Nagle wrote:
> > On 5/30/2012 6:57 PM, duncan smith wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> I have been attempting to speed up some code by using an sqlite
> >> database, but I'm not getting the performance gains I expected.
>
On 31/05/12 06:15, John Nagle wrote:
On 5/30/2012 6:57 PM, duncan smith wrote:
Hello,
I have been attempting to speed up some code by using an sqlite
database, but I'm not getting the performance gains I expected.
SQLite is a "lite" database. It's good for data that's read a
lot and not change
John Nagle writes:
> If you have 67 columns in a table, you may be approaching the
> problem incorrectly.
+1 SQL QotW, on basis of diplomacy.
The OP may need to learn about database normalisation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization>.
--
\“Sane people have an appr
On 5/30/2012 6:57 PM, duncan smith wrote:
Hello,
I have been attempting to speed up some code by using an sqlite
database, but I'm not getting the performance gains I expected.
SQLite is a "lite" database. It's good for data that's read a
lot and not changed much. It's good for small data
Hello,
I have been attempting to speed up some code by using an sqlite
database, but I'm not getting the performance gains I expected.
The use case:
I have text files containing data which may or may not include a header
in the first line. Each line (other than the header) is a record,
