Hi Is there a DB that can be used with rails that does not require root access to install (like MySQL or PgSQL)? It needs to be relatively fast and capable of moderate loads and table sizes. I am thinking of something like berkelyDB. For the curious, I am on a machine without root access and no ability to install applications that require root. Maybe MySQL is a solution, but I have tried to install MySQL on Linux in a local directory, but was unsuccessful at getting it to look for db other than /var and or to use a custom port. And, I am less optimistic about getting this to work on a sun box. Would be nice if we could do: gem install rails gem install rails_db and away we go. :) -- Jim Freeze Code Red. Code Ruby
On Friday 15 April 2005 09:44 am, Jim Freeze wrote:> Hi > > Is there a DB that can be used with rails that does > not require root access to install (like MySQL or PgSQL)? > It needs to be relatively fast and capable of moderate loads > and table sizes. > > I am thinking of something like berkelyDB.Sqlite?
* Caleb Tennis <caleb-PfRr3eUzJn1Wk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-15 09:48:17 -0500]:> Sqlite?I''ve seen a lot of bad press on this. Is it stable and working well inside rails? Did it overcome its speed issues? Thanks -- Jim Freeze Code Red. Code Ruby
I haven''t used sqlite within rails, but I do have some experience with it while using Trac. I haven''t had any stability problems with it, though interestingly, it was more difficult to setup than MySQL. On Apr 15, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Jim Freeze wrote:> * Caleb Tennis <caleb-PfRr3eUzJn1Wk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-15 09:48:17 -0500]: > >> Sqlite? > > I''ve seen a lot of bad press on this. Is it stable and working > well inside rails? Did it overcome its speed issues? > > Thanks > -- > Jim Freeze > Code Red. Code Ruby > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
* Joseph Hosteny <jhosteny-ee4meeAH724@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-15 11:42:07 -0400]:> I haven''t used sqlite within rails, but I do have some experience with > it while using Trac. I haven''t had any stability problems with it, > though interestingly, it was more difficult to setup than MySQL.Ugh Maybe I should play around with MySQL some more. -- Jim Freeze Code Red. Code Ruby
On 4/15/05, Jim Freeze <rubyonrails-c4f1mTqwXZkdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hi > > Is there a DB that can be used with rails that does > not require root access to install (like MySQL or PgSQL)? > It needs to be relatively fast and capable of moderate loads > and table sizes. > > I am thinking of something like berkelyDB. > > For the curious, I am on a machine without root access and > no ability to install applications that require root. > > Maybe MySQL is a solution, but I have tried to install MySQL > on Linux in a local directory, but was unsuccessful at > getting it to look for db other than /var and or to use a custom > port. And, I am less optimistic about getting this to work > on a sun box. > > Would be nice if we could do: > > gem install rails > gem install rails_db > > and away we go. :) > > -- > Jim Freeze > Code Red. Code Ruby > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >Hi Jim I believe that the configure script for mysql allows you to specify the location of the ''global'' mysql config. I''m guessing that there''s already a mysql install on the machine that you''re working on, which then has a my.cnf file in /etc already. If you choose another location, then copy the default my.cnf file to that directory and edit it to specify writeable-by-your-user locations for the db, logs, etc, you should be ok. Dave -- Dave Goodlad dgoodlad-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org or dave-eHfbeeWWzZOw5LPnMra/2Q@public.gmane.org http://david.goodlad.ca/
On Friday 15 April 2005 10:49 am, Jim Freeze wrote:> Maybe I should play around with MySQL some more.Note that you can use Mysql through a network, so if you were able to install it on some other machine (across the internet, perhaps) you could access the database through a network.
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Jim Freeze wrote:> * Caleb Tennis <caleb-PfRr3eUzJn1Wk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-15 09:48:17 -0500]: > >> Sqlite? > > I''ve seen a lot of bad press on this. Is it stable and working > well inside rails? Did it overcome its speed issues?i''ve run 10s of millions of queries through sqlite in production across unplanned rebooted, power failures, disk failures and all on a a nfs mounted file system which, supposedly, ''does not work.'' i not had one single error from sqlite - it simply works. what''s your use case? rails obviously - but what specifically? cheers. -a -- ==============================================================================| email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov | phone :: 303.497.6469 | although gold dust is precious, when it gets in your eyes, it obstructs | your vision. --hsi-tang ===============================================================================
SQLite is simply wondelful. You should try it out. There is a howto on how you set your rails to work with SQLite in ROR wiki. http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/show/HowtoUseSQLite I don''t know what you mean with SQLite being more difficult to setup than mysql. Granted rails comes with mysql as default database, but I setting up SQLite is not really complex. Heikki. On 4/15/05, Joseph Hosteny <jhosteny-ee4meeAH724@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I haven''t used sqlite within rails, but I do have some experience with > it while using Trac. I haven''t had any stability problems with it, > though interestingly, it was more difficult to setup than MySQL. > > On Apr 15, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Jim Freeze wrote: > > > * Caleb Tennis <caleb-PfRr3eUzJn1Wk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-15 09:48:17 -0500]: > > > >> Sqlite? > > > > I''ve seen a lot of bad press on this. Is it stable and working > > well inside rails? Did it overcome its speed issues? > > > > Thanks > > -- > > Jim Freeze > > Code Red. Code Ruby > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails mailing list > > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- // heikki tunkelo
I should have chosen my words more carefully. I''m certainly happy with SQLite on my Trac setup for browsing project repositories. It wasn''t really hard to setup, but I hit a couple of gotchas that I didn''t have when setting up MySQL. And I should have added the caveat that I''ve done several MySQL installations before, so it''s not really a fair comparison! On Apr 15, 2005, at 12:22 PM, Heikki Tunkelo wrote:> SQLite is simply wondelful. > > You should try it out. There is a howto on how you set your rails to > work with SQLite in ROR wiki. > > http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/show/HowtoUseSQLite > > I don''t know what you mean with SQLite being more difficult to setup > than mysql. Granted rails comes with mysql as default database, but I > setting up SQLite is not really complex. > > > Heikki. > > On 4/15/05, Joseph Hosteny <jhosteny-ee4meeAH724@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> I haven''t used sqlite within rails, but I do have some experience with >> it while using Trac. I haven''t had any stability problems with it, >> though interestingly, it was more difficult to setup than MySQL. >> >> On Apr 15, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Jim Freeze wrote: >> >>> * Caleb Tennis <caleb-PfRr3eUzJn1Wk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-15 09:48:17 -0500]: >>> >>>> Sqlite? >>> >>> I''ve seen a lot of bad press on this. Is it stable and working >>> well inside rails? Did it overcome its speed issues? >>> >>> Thanks >>> -- >>> Jim Freeze >>> Code Red. Code Ruby >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Rails mailing list >>> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >>> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails mailing list >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >> > > > -- > // heikki tunkelo > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
Ok, granted, it also took me a while to find the right way to set it up with rails. That''s why I wrote the HOWTO ;) Heikki On 4/15/05, Joseph Hosteny <jhosteny-ee4meeAH724@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I should have chosen my words more carefully. I''m certainly happy with > SQLite on my Trac setup for browsing project repositories. It wasn''t > really hard to setup, but I hit a couple of gotchas that I didn''t have > when setting up MySQL. And I should have added the caveat that I''ve > done several MySQL installations before, so it''s not really a fair > comparison! > > > On Apr 15, 2005, at 12:22 PM, Heikki Tunkelo wrote: > > > SQLite is simply wondelful. > > > > You should try it out. There is a howto on how you set your rails to > > work with SQLite in ROR wiki. > > > > http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/show/HowtoUseSQLite > > > > I don''t know what you mean with SQLite being more difficult to setup > > than mysql. Granted rails comes with mysql as default database, but I > > setting up SQLite is not really complex. > > > > > > Heikki. > > > > On 4/15/05, Joseph Hosteny <jhosteny-ee4meeAH724@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> I haven''t used sqlite within rails, but I do have some experience with > >> it while using Trac. I haven''t had any stability problems with it, > >> though interestingly, it was more difficult to setup than MySQL. > >> > >> On Apr 15, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Jim Freeze wrote: > >> > >>> * Caleb Tennis <caleb-PfRr3eUzJn1Wk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-15 09:48:17 -0500]: > >>> > >>>> Sqlite? > >>> > >>> I''ve seen a lot of bad press on this. Is it stable and working > >>> well inside rails? Did it overcome its speed issues? > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> -- > >>> Jim Freeze > >>> Code Red. Code Ruby > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Rails mailing list > >>> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > >>> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rails mailing list > >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > >> > > > > > > -- > > // heikki tunkelo > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails mailing list > > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- // heikki tunkelo
If by speed issue you mean doing lots of updates/inserts as single atomic transactions, then the short answer is, no it has not. And it probably never will. For every transaction SQLite does fsycn for the database file, this means that for every transaction it has to wait that data is actually written to a physical disk. On large transactions it is comparable (and faster) to MySQL. Here is an (outdated) comparison between SQLite, PostgreSQL and MySQL http://www.sqlite.org/speed.html Heikki On 4/15/05, Jim Freeze <rubyonrails-c4f1mTqwXZkdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:> * Caleb Tennis <caleb-PfRr3eUzJn1Wk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-15 09:48:17 -0500]: > > > Sqlite? > > I''ve seen a lot of bad press on this. Is it stable and working > well inside rails? Did it overcome its speed issues? > > Thanks > -- > Jim Freeze > Code Red. Code Ruby > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- // heikki tunkelo
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Ara.T.Howard wrote:> i''ve run 10s of millions of queries through sqlite in production across > unplanned rebooted, power failures, disk failures and all on a a nfs > mounted file system which, supposedly, ''does not work.'' i not had one > single error from sqlite - it simply works.You should definitely be playing the lottery! FWIW, I''ve had exactly the opposite experience. In my specific multi-user environment, SQLite3 completely broke down. Personally, I wouldn''t use it for any production environment - dev or test maybe (not likely tho). --Steve
On 4/15/05, Ara.T.Howard <Ara.T.Howard-32lpuo7BZBA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Jim Freeze wrote: > > > * Caleb Tennis <caleb-PfRr3eUzJn1Wk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-15 09:48:17 -0500]: > > > >> Sqlite? > > > > I''ve seen a lot of bad press on this. Is it stable and working > > well inside rails? Did it overcome its speed issues? > > i''ve run 10s of millions of queries through sqlite in production across > unplanned rebooted, power failures, disk failures and all on a a nfs mounted > file system which, supposedly, ''does not work.'' i not had one single error > from sqlite - it simply works. > > what''s your use case? rails obviously - but what specifically?Question for you: I submitted my rails site (www.jerrymahan.com) to a local messageboard. It got a lot of hits in a short amount of time. A couple people reported that they got a Rails error saying that the database was locked. This was with sqlite3 on TxD. Any ideas about what might''ve caused that? Thanks, Joe
Sqlite doesn''t support mulitple users that well. It''s just a file on the filesystem that gets locked when it''s being updated (not when it''s just being read AFAIK). This is why I don''t use sqlite for production websites. On 4/15/05, Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 4/15/05, Ara.T.Howard <Ara.T.Howard-32lpuo7BZBA@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Jim Freeze wrote: > > > > > * Caleb Tennis <caleb-PfRr3eUzJn1Wk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-15 09:48:17 -0500]: > > > > > >> Sqlite? > > > > > > I''ve seen a lot of bad press on this. Is it stable and working > > > well inside rails? Did it overcome its speed issues? > > > > i''ve run 10s of millions of queries through sqlite in production across > > unplanned rebooted, power failures, disk failures and all on a a nfs mounted > > file system which, supposedly, ''does not work.'' i not had one single error > > from sqlite - it simply works. > > > > what''s your use case? rails obviously - but what specifically? > > Question for you: I submitted my rails site (www.jerrymahan.com) to a > local messageboard. It got a lot of hits in a short amount of time. > A couple people reported that they got a Rails error saying that the > database was locked. This was with sqlite3 on TxD. > > Any ideas about what might''ve caused that? > > Thanks, > Joe > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- rick http://techno-weenie.net
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Stephen Waits wrote:> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Ara.T.Howard wrote: > >> i''ve run 10s of millions of queries through sqlite in production across >> unplanned rebooted, power failures, disk failures and all on a a nfs >> mounted file system which, supposedly, ''does not work.'' i not had one >> single error from sqlite - it simply works. > > You should definitely be playing the lottery!there is quite a bit of code wrapping the access i assure you. i''ve tested many times by just pressing the power button - no issues.> FWIW, I''ve had exactly the opposite experience. In my specific multi-user > environment, SQLite3 completely broke down.ah - sqlite3 is too new. use a 2.8.x version - faster too. also, rails is not a multi-user enviromnent... my access has 30+ node simousltaneously accessing the nfs mounted db. if you want heavy concurrent access with sqlite you must completely understand concurrent file access (eg. locking/caching) in general. i''m curious what isssues you faced. cheers. -a -- ==============================================================================| email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov | phone :: 303.497.6469 | although gold dust is precious, when it gets in your eyes, it obstructs | your vision. --hsi-tang ===============================================================================
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Ara.T.Howard wrote:> you must completely understand concurrent file access (eg. > locking/caching) in general.Of course..> i''m curious what isssues you faced.My experience was in using it with dspam. It couldn''t go 24 hours without corrupting itself - this on a very light traffic mail server. That said, the dspam folks might not (obviously) have gotten the locking worked out right. --Steve
I''m with Ara. I haven''t seen anything major with SQLite2 and haven''t trusted the baby SQLite3 with anything. From what I understand, the ruby drivers for this version are fairly new too... just doesn''t seem like a good mix. But SQLite2 is being used as a backend for smaller enterprise deployments (< 1000 users) Jabber servers with no problems. Berkeley DB used to be the preferred backend, but it corrupts itself all the time during crashes, reboots, etc. There may be a slight amount of data-loss in these conditions with SQLite, but at least the Jabber software doesn''t hang when the server''s issue is resolved. Just my $0.02. bs. On 4/15/05, Stephen Waits <swaits-g8GSkY9QmIteoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Ara.T.Howard wrote: > > > i''ve run 10s of millions of queries through sqlite in production across > > unplanned rebooted, power failures, disk failures and all on a a nfs > > mounted file system which, supposedly, ''does not work.'' i not had one > > single error from sqlite - it simply works. > > You should definitely be playing the lottery! > > FWIW, I''ve had exactly the opposite experience. In my specific multi-user > environment, SQLite3 completely broke down. > > Personally, I wouldn''t use it for any production environment - dev or test > maybe (not likely tho). > > --Steve > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Joe Van Dyk wrote:> Question for you: I submitted my rails site (www.jerrymahan.com) to a local > messageboard. It got a lot of hits in a short amount of time. A couple > people reported that they got a Rails error saying that the database was > locked. This was with sqlite3 on TxD. > > Any ideas about what might''ve caused that?sqlite locks the entire db during a transaction. this is not as bad as it sounds because it does some pretty smart things behind the scenes. basically you want something like max_tries = 42 max_tries.times do begin execute break rescue SQLite::LockedException sleep rand end end let me know if that doesn''t make sense. -a -- ==============================================================================| email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov | phone :: 303.497.6469 | although gold dust is precious, when it gets in your eyes, it obstructs | your vision. --hsi-tang ===============================================================================
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Stephen Waits wrote:> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Ara.T.Howard wrote: > >> you must completely understand concurrent file access (eg. >> locking/caching) in general. > > Of course.. > >> i''m curious what isssues you faced. > > My experience was in using it with dspam. It couldn''t go 24 hours without > corrupting itself - this on a very light traffic mail server. > > That said, the dspam folks might not (obviously) have gotten the locking > worked out right.sounds like it. i''ve never corrupted one and my usage is absolutely obscene. -a -- ==============================================================================| email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov | phone :: 303.497.6469 | although gold dust is precious, when it gets in your eyes, it obstructs | your vision. --hsi-tang ===============================================================================
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Joe Van Dyk wrote:> On 4/15/05, Ara.T.Howard <Ara.T.Howard-32lpuo7BZBA@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Joe Van Dyk wrote: >> >>> Question for you: I submitted my rails site (www.jerrymahan.com) to a local >>> messageboard. It got a lot of hits in a short amount of time. A couple >>> people reported that they got a Rails error saying that the database was >>> locked. This was with sqlite3 on TxD. >>> >>> Any ideas about what might''ve caused that? >> >> sqlite locks the entire db during a transaction. this is not as bad as it >> sounds because it does some pretty smart things behind the scenes. basically >> you want something like >> >> max_tries = 42 >> >> max_tries.times do >> begin >> execute >> break >> rescue SQLite::LockedException >> sleep rand >> end >> end >> >> let me know if that doesn''t make sense. >> Would I put something like that around every model function that needed to > update the DB?basically. i''d be more inclined just to redefine execute though; something like: alias __execute__ execute def execute(*a, &b) max_tries = Integer($max_tries || 42) begin return(__execute__(*a, &b)) rescue SQLite::LockedException (max_tries -= 1) > 0 ? (sleep(2 * rand) and retry) : raise end end> It''s not important in this particular case, and sqlite3 is fine, since > there''s only one person who''s going to be updating the site at a time. But > just wondering for future purposes.i''m suprised rails doesn''t do that already... anyone confirm that it doesn''t? you __definitely__ need to write code which deals with a locked db if you use sqlite. it''s not hard - but you must do it. cheers. -a -- ==============================================================================| email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov | phone :: 303.497.6469 | although gold dust is precious, when it gets in your eyes, it obstructs | your vision. --hsi-tang ===============================================================================
I''m also interest in this, especially speed issue. When I first tried AR, I noticed severe speed degration in DB access, especially when I used SQLite as a backend. This was contradicting to my prior experience, and so I recently did some testing to find out where the issue is. To run a test, I did a full dump of database with total of ~22000 records in ~10 tables, and compared result of following access methods: 1. Using "sqlite3" command 2. Using low-level SQLite3/Ruby API (require ''sqlite3_api'') 3. Using standard SQLite3/Ruby API (require ''sqlite3'') 4. Using Perl DBI/DBD::SQLite API And I got following results (fastest result after 10 runs each): 1. Raw sqlite3 -> 0.18[s] 2. Low-level SQLite3/Ruby API -> 1.36[s] 3. Standard SQLite3/Ruby API -> 6.36[s] 4. Perl DBI API -> 0.36[s] This was really dissapointing result for SQLite3/Ruby, because I can get result close to 2. even when I use Ruby/MySQL/DBI API (which has similarly high-level API as 3.). It has more than 3500% overhead compared with raw sqlite3. Obviously, there''s something wrong between layer 2. and 3., through result 2. is also somewhat annoying to say the least. Since AR uses standard SQLite3/Ruby API (and I would never recommend using low-level SQLite3/Ruby as it''s just hard to use), there''s no way out. I have attached my test scripts, so anyone interested can re-test to see if it''s environment-related problem or not. Any ideas?>>Sqlite? > > I''ve seen a lot of bad press on this. Is it stable and working > well inside rails? Did it overcome its speed issues?-- Taisuke Yamada _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Taisuke Yamada
2005-Apr-16 04:43 UTC
SQLite3 backend performance issue (was Re: Need DB without root)
After digging through google search, I noticed same report was made to this list few months ago: http://one.textdrive.com/pipermail/rails/2005-February/003597.html So I guess things hasn''t changed much so far. Think I''ll go talk with SQLite3/Ruby developers. # BTW, I''ve verified this result on Linux, so this isn''t a # OS-specific issue.> This was really dissapointing result for SQLite3/Ruby, > because I can get result close to 2. even when I use > Ruby/MySQL/DBI API (which has similarly high-level API as 3.). > > It has more than 3500% overhead compared with raw sqlite3. > Obviously, there''s something wrong between layer 2. and 3., > through result 2. is also somewhat annoying to say the least. > > Since AR uses standard SQLite3/Ruby API (and I would never > recommend using low-level SQLite3/Ruby as it''s just hard to > use), there''s no way out.-- Taisuke Yamada
* Ara.T.Howard <Ara.T.Howard-32lpuo7BZBA@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-15 13:29:28 -0600]:> ah - sqlite3 is too new. use a 2.8.x version - faster too. also, rails is > not a multi-user enviromnent... my access has 30+ node simousltaneously > accessing the nfs mounted db. if you want heavy concurrent access with > sqlite > you must completely understand concurrent file access (eg. locking/caching) > in > general.gem list --remote | grep -i sqlite sqlite (2.0.1, 2.0.0, 1.3.1, 1.3.0, 1.2.9.1, 1.2.0, 1.1.3, 1.1.2, 1.1.1, 1.1) SQLite/Ruby is a module to allow Ruby scripts to interface with a SQLite database. VERSIONS >=2.0.0 ARE BETA RELEASES. THEY ARE sqlite-ruby (2.2.3, 2.2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.0, 2.1.0, 2.0.3, 2.0.2) SQLite/Ruby is a module to allow Ruby scripts to interface with a SQLite database. sqlite3-ruby (1.1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.0, 0.9.0, 0.6.0, 0.5.0) SQLite3/Ruby is a module to allow Ruby scripts to interface with a SQLite3 database. So, what is it that I should install? gem install sqlite-ruby -v ?? -- Jim Freeze Code Red. Code Ruby
The only version I''ve used (and it''s been reliable for me) is sqlite-ruby 2.2.3. Cheers, Ben On 4/16/05, Jim Freeze <rubyonrails-c4f1mTqwXZkdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:> * Ara.T.Howard <Ara.T.Howard-32lpuo7BZBA@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-15 13:29:28 -0600]: > > > ah - sqlite3 is too new. use a 2.8.x version - faster too. also, rails is > > not a multi-user enviromnent... my access has 30+ node simousltaneously > > accessing the nfs mounted db. if you want heavy concurrent access with > > sqlite > > you must completely understand concurrent file access (eg. locking/caching) > > in > > general. > > gem list --remote | grep -i sqlite > sqlite (2.0.1, 2.0.0, 1.3.1, 1.3.0, 1.2.9.1, 1.2.0, 1.1.3, 1.1.2, 1.1.1, 1.1) > SQLite/Ruby is a module to allow Ruby scripts to interface with a > SQLite database. VERSIONS >=2.0.0 ARE BETA RELEASES. THEY ARE > sqlite-ruby (2.2.3, 2.2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.0, 2.1.0, 2.0.3, 2.0.2) > SQLite/Ruby is a module to allow Ruby scripts to interface with a > SQLite database. > sqlite3-ruby (1.1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.0, 0.9.0, 0.6.0, 0.5.0) > SQLite3/Ruby is a module to allow Ruby scripts to interface with a > SQLite3 database. > > So, what is it that I should install? > > gem install sqlite-ruby -v ?? > > -- > Jim Freeze > Code Red. Code Ruby > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
* Ben Schumacher <benschumacher-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-16 08:28:55 -0600]:> The only version I''ve used (and it''s been reliable for me) is sqlite-ruby 2.2.3.If I use gems to install sqlite, do I need to install sqlite and sqlite-ruby? In other words, would I install #13 and then #1 below? Select which gem to install for your platform (powerpc-darwin7.7.0) 1. sqlite-ruby 2.2.3 (ruby) 2. sqlite-ruby 2.2.3 (mswin32) 3. sqlite-ruby 2.2.2 (ruby) 4. sqlite-ruby 2.2.2 (mswin32) 5. sqlite-ruby 2.2.1 (mswin32) 6. sqlite-ruby 2.2.1 (ruby) 7. sqlite-ruby 2.2.0 (mswin32) 8. sqlite-ruby 2.2.0 (ruby) 9. sqlite-ruby 2.1.0 (mswin32) 10. sqlite-ruby 2.1.0 (ruby) 11. sqlite-ruby 2.0.3 (ruby) 12. sqlite-ruby 2.0.2 (ruby) 13. sqlite 2.0.1 (ruby) 14. sqlite 2.0.0 (ruby) 15. sqlite 1.3.1 (ruby) 16. sqlite 1.3.0 (ruby) 17. sqlite 1.2.9.1 (ruby) 18. sqlite 1.2.0 (ruby) 19. sqlite 1.1.3 (ruby) 20. sqlite 1.1.2 (ruby) 21. sqlite 1.1.1 (ruby) 22. sqlite 1.1 (ruby) 23. Cancel installation Thanks -- Jim Freeze Code Red. Code Ruby
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Jim Freeze wrote:> * Ara.T.Howard <Ara.T.Howard-32lpuo7BZBA@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-15 13:29:28 -0600]: > >> ah - sqlite3 is too new. use a 2.8.x version - faster too. also, rails is >> not a multi-user enviromnent... my access has 30+ node simousltaneously >> accessing the nfs mounted db. if you want heavy concurrent access with >> sqlite >> you must completely understand concurrent file access (eg. locking/caching) >> in >> general. > > gem list --remote | grep -i sqlite > sqlite (2.0.1, 2.0.0, 1.3.1, 1.3.0, 1.2.9.1, 1.2.0, 1.1.3, 1.1.2, 1.1.1, 1.1) > SQLite/Ruby is a module to allow Ruby scripts to interface with a > SQLite database. VERSIONS >=2.0.0 ARE BETA RELEASES. THEY ARE > sqlite-ruby (2.2.3, 2.2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.0, 2.1.0, 2.0.3, 2.0.2) > SQLite/Ruby is a module to allow Ruby scripts to interface with a > SQLite database. > sqlite3-ruby (1.1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.0, 0.9.0, 0.6.0, 0.5.0) > SQLite3/Ruby is a module to allow Ruby scripts to interface with a > SQLite3 database. > > So, what is it that I should install? > > gem install sqlite-ruby -v ??yup - as far as i know. i''ve only used the tar ball and compiled against sqlite 2.8.x. cheers. -a -- ==============================================================================| email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov | phone :: 303.497.6469 | although gold dust is precious, when it gets in your eyes, it obstructs | your vision. --hsi-tang ===============================================================================
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Jim Freeze wrote:> * Ben Schumacher <benschumacher-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-16 08:28:55 -0600]: > >> The only version I''ve used (and it''s been reliable for me) is sqlite-ruby 2.2.3. > > If I use gems to install sqlite, do I need to install > sqlite and sqlite-ruby? In other words, would I install > #13 and then #1 below? > > > Select which gem to install for your platform (powerpc-darwin7.7.0) > 1. sqlite-ruby 2.2.3 (ruby) > 2. sqlite-ruby 2.2.3 (mswin32) > 3. sqlite-ruby 2.2.2 (ruby) > 4. sqlite-ruby 2.2.2 (mswin32) > 5. sqlite-ruby 2.2.1 (mswin32) > 6. sqlite-ruby 2.2.1 (ruby) > 7. sqlite-ruby 2.2.0 (mswin32) > 8. sqlite-ruby 2.2.0 (ruby) > 9. sqlite-ruby 2.1.0 (mswin32) > 10. sqlite-ruby 2.1.0 (ruby) > 11. sqlite-ruby 2.0.3 (ruby) > 12. sqlite-ruby 2.0.2 (ruby) > 13. sqlite 2.0.1 (ruby) > 14. sqlite 2.0.0 (ruby) > 15. sqlite 1.3.1 (ruby) > 16. sqlite 1.3.0 (ruby) > 17. sqlite 1.2.9.1 (ruby) > 18. sqlite 1.2.0 (ruby) > 19. sqlite 1.1.3 (ruby) > 20. sqlite 1.1.2 (ruby) > 21. sqlite 1.1.1 (ruby) > 22. sqlite 1.1 (ruby) > 23. Cancel installationyou definitely need #1. i don''t know what #13 is - if it''s the sqlite library itself (eg the sqlite command line tool and libs) then you need it __first__. -a -- ==============================================================================| email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov | phone :: 303.497.6469 | although gold dust is precious, when it gets in your eyes, it obstructs | your vision. --hsi-tang ===============================================================================
Ara.T.Howard wrote:> you definitely need #1. i don''t know what #13 is - if it''s the sqlite > library > itself (eg the sqlite command line tool and libs) then you need it > __first__.#13 is an earlier version of the same thing. Gem name for sqlite driver was changed. -- Best regards, Alexey Verkhovsky Ruby Forum: http://ruby-forum.org (moderator) RForum: http://rforum.andreas-s.net (co-author) Instiki: http://instiki.org (maintainer)
* Ara.T.Howard <Ara.T.Howard-32lpuo7BZBA@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-16 13:30:50 -0600]:> >If I use gems to install sqlite, do I need to install > >sqlite and sqlite-ruby? In other words, would I install > >#13 and then #1 below? > > > >Select which gem to install for your platform (powerpc-darwin7.7.0) > >1. sqlite-ruby 2.2.3 (ruby) > >2. sqlite-ruby 2.2.3 (mswin32) > >3. sqlite-ruby 2.2.2 (ruby) > >4. sqlite-ruby 2.2.2 (mswin32) > >5. sqlite-ruby 2.2.1 (mswin32) > >6. sqlite-ruby 2.2.1 (ruby) > >7. sqlite-ruby 2.2.0 (mswin32) > >8. sqlite-ruby 2.2.0 (ruby) > >9. sqlite-ruby 2.1.0 (mswin32) > >10. sqlite-ruby 2.1.0 (ruby) > >11. sqlite-ruby 2.0.3 (ruby) > >12. sqlite-ruby 2.0.2 (ruby) > >13. sqlite 2.0.1 (ruby) > >14. sqlite 2.0.0 (ruby) > >15. sqlite 1.3.1 (ruby) > >16. sqlite 1.3.0 (ruby) > >17. sqlite 1.2.9.1 (ruby) > >18. sqlite 1.2.0 (ruby) > >19. sqlite 1.1.3 (ruby) > >20. sqlite 1.1.2 (ruby) > >21. sqlite 1.1.1 (ruby) > >22. sqlite 1.1 (ruby) > >23. Cancel installation > > you definitely need #1. i don''t know what #13 is - if it''s the sqlite > libraryI assumed it was the sqlite library. When I tried to install #1 from a gem, it failed with the log file saying it could not find sqlite.h. -- Jim Freeze Code Red. Code Ruby
On Apr 16, 2005, at 1:59 PM, Jim Freeze wrote:> I assumed it was the sqlite library. When I tried to install #1 from > a gem, it failed with the log file saying it could not find sqlite.h. >It is, as Alexey said, an earlier version of the sqlite-ruby gem. I changed the gem name when I released the sqlite-ruby 2.0 stable gem... to my eternal shame. (Never, ever, ever, change the name of a gem. It causes mass confusion and head-scratching.) That said: do you have the sqlite library itself installed? If so, where is it installed to? (ie, /usr? or /usr/local?) - Jamis
* Jamis Buck <jamis-uHoyYlH2B+GakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-16 14:34:56 -0600]:> On Apr 16, 2005, at 1:59 PM, Jim Freeze wrote: > > It is, as Alexey said, an earlier version of the sqlite-ruby gem. I > changed the gem name when I released the sqlite-ruby 2.0 stable gem... > to my eternal shame. (Never, ever, ever, change the name of a gem. It > causes mass confusion and head-scratching.)Ok, that wasn''t clear. Would be nice if gem list provided a way for comments about this (or a way to deprecate old files). Gem folk, are you listening? :)> That said: do you have the sqlite library itself installed? If so, > where is it installed to? (ie, /usr? or /usr/local?)Uh, no. I was thinking that was what gem install sqlite did. Ok, so visited sqlite.org and dowloaded sqlite-2.8.16.bin.gz. One problem, what is a .bin file and how do I uncompress it? -- Jim Freeze Code Red. Code Ruby
On Sunday, April 17, 2005, 8:32:13 AM, Jim wrote:> * Jamis Buck <jamis-uHoyYlH2B+GakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-16 14:34:56 -0600]:>> On Apr 16, 2005, at 1:59 PM, Jim Freeze wrote: >> >> It is, as Alexey said, an earlier version of the sqlite-ruby gem. I >> changed the gem name when I released the sqlite-ruby 2.0 stable gem... >> to my eternal shame. (Never, ever, ever, change the name of a gem. It >> causes mass confusion and head-scratching.)> Ok, that wasn''t clear. Would be nice if gem list provided a way > for comments about this (or a way to deprecate old files). > Gem folk, are you listening? :)Listening :) I suggested to Jamis a way of clarifying things within the existing gem software. A deprecation flag is probably a good idea, so I''ll raise that on the gem list.>> That said: do you have the sqlite library itself installed? If so, >> where is it installed to? (ie, /usr? or /usr/local?)> Uh, no. I was thinking that was what gem install sqlite did.Remember: gem installs Ruby packages, not third-party software. It wouldn''t be impossible to install the SQLite database viw gem, but it''s unlikely it will ever happen. Also, for future reference, a command like gem search -l sqlite will give you a better picture of what all those sqlite gems are about. Gavin
* Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair-81uBx+iSpXA0n/F98K4Iww@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-17 11:29:08 +1000]:> On Sunday, April 17, 2005, 8:32:13 AM, Jim wrote: > > > for comments about this (or a way to deprecate old files). > > Gem folk, are you listening? :) > > Listening :) I suggested to Jamis a way of clarifying things within > the existing gem software. A deprecation flag is probably a good > idea, so I''ll raise that on the gem list.Great. You guys are doing a great job.> Remember: gem installs Ruby packages, not third-party software. It > wouldn''t be impossible to install the SQLite database viw gem, but > it''s unlikely it will ever happen.Oh. For some reason, I thought gem could launch simple builds that would work if all the tools were installed. Maybe I was just dreaming... -- Jim Freeze Code Red. Code Ruby
On Sunday, April 17, 2005, 2:58:41 PM, Jim wrote:>> Remember: gem installs Ruby packages, not third-party software. It >> wouldn''t be impossible to install the SQLite database viw gem, but >> it''s unlikely it will ever happen.> Oh. For some reason, I thought gem could launch simple builds > that would work if all the tools were installed. > Maybe I was just dreaming...gem can build Ruby extensions (typically C files), which you may have seen before and thought was a more general build. gem only installs files into directories like /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-0.11.1/... Oh, except for application stubs, like /usr/local/bin/rake # Loads the rake file buried in the gem dir. Hope that off-topic aside is educational :) Gavin
* Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair-81uBx+iSpXA0n/F98K4Iww@public.gmane.org> [2005-04-17 21:09:15 +1000]:> gem can build Ruby extensions (typically C files), which you may have > seen before and thought was a more general build. > > gem only installs files into directories like > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-0.11.1/... > > Oh, except for application stubs, like > > /usr/local/bin/rake # Loads the rake file buried in the gem dir. > > Hope that off-topic aside is educational :)Yes, thanks. That explains it. -- Jim Freeze Code Red. Code Ruby