Through the SQLite database manager I am able to generate a .sqlite file.
And through Java code I am able to generate a .db file (database file) in SQLite database.
What is difference between the two files?
Absolutely none. SQLite does not care the least what extension the file uses. It checks whether what it was given is indeed a SQLite3 database by inspecting the magic number and the header.
It's purely up to you whether you use the suffix .db, .sqlite, .dat, .mydata, .foo or whatever... or no extension at all; that is also permitted. There is no standard and the documentation does not seem to make any particular suggestion either, so everybody uses something else.
Also, if you are using SQLite as a storage backend for your application, it actually makes sense to use extension specific to your application. Because it is not just any random SQLite database, it is SQLite database with specific schema storing particular kind of data.
Related
In an application that ships with a read-only SQLite database, I've found that opening the database as immutable radically improves query performance. However the SQLite documentation says this (emphasis mine):
The immutable parameter is a boolean query parameter that indicates that the database file is stored on read-only media. When immutable is set, SQLite assumes that the database file cannot be changed, even by a process with higher privilege, and so the database is opened read-only and all locking and change detection is disabled.
This is tripping me up a bit because the media (Windows Program Files) is not read-only and it can be changed, but the expectation is that it won't change. The application itself does not alter the database. A user could alter the databases using external tools (or just open it in Notepad and corrupt it) but we would call that user error and tell them not to do that.
My concern is that this part of the documentation might be hinting at some other process I'm not aware of (like maybe Windows periodically doing something that might result in the database file changing in some way).
If the application itself does not alter the database, and the user doesn't either, and there isn't some other malicious or poorly-coded program on the computer that might be touching files that don't belong to it, is it reasonably safe to open a SQLite database as immutable?
Experimentally, the answer appears to be yes, it is safe. I made this change and have not observed any problems with it.
I'm developing an application that uses SQLite for its data files. I'm just linking in the SQLite amalgamation source, using it directly.
If the user chooses to create a new file, I check to see if the file already exists, ask the user if they want to overwrite the file, and delete it if they say yes. Then I call sqlite3_open_v2() with flags set to SQLITE_OPEN_READWRITE | SQLITE_OPEN_CREATE to create and open the new data file.
Which is fine, except, what happens if a malicious user recreates the file I'm trying to open in between the file being deleted and SQLite opening it? As far as I'm aware, SQLite will just open the existing file.
My program doesn't involve passwords or any kind of security function whatsoever. It's a pretty simple app, all things considered. However, I've read plenty of stories where someone uses a simple app with an obscure bug in it to bypass the security of some system.
So, bottom line, is there a way to make sqlite3_open() fail if the file already exists?
You might be able to patch in support for the O_EXCL option flag of open(2). If you are using SQLite on a platform that supports that.
I would like to open and read an SQLite .db file, read-only. I guarantee that nobody else will touch it during this time (perhaps, except for read only).
What I need from SQLite3 in return, is that it will write nothing to disk, ever (specifically - none of those described here), and not use any file-system locks on the file.
Is that too much to ask?
If you are running under some Unix, you can use the unix-none VFS to disable all locking.
In Windows, SQLite always uses locks.
If you really want to avoid locks, you can either write your own VFS, or override the locking system calls with xSetSystemCall.
If SQLite needs a temporary file, you cannot prevent it from creating one.
However, you can configure it to create them in memory instead of on disk.
The VFS does not have a Lock method that can be injected. Therefore there is no a direct method to inject dummy LockFile and LockFileEx methods.
These methods are referenced inside sqlite3_io_methods (winIoMethod) and don't seem to be easy to modify in runtime without altering SQLite source code.
So, if I understand correctly, VFS is not the right direction? Or is it?
May be use a read-only user? I don't know if such role exists in SQL Lite.
I want to provide iCloud support for my wrapper around sqlite. Is not using coredata.
I wonder how enable iCloud for it. The database content is changed all the time (is for invoicing). Also, if is possible to have some kind of versioning will be great.
Exist any sample I can use to do this?
The short answer is no, you would need to use Core Data as you suspected. Apple has stated that sqlite is unsupported.
Edit: Check out the section on iCloud that's now in the iOS Application Programming Guide under Using iCloud in Conjunction with Databases
Using iCloud with a SQLite database is possible only if your app uses
Core Data to manage that database. Accessing live database files in
iCloud using the SQLite interfaces is not supported and will likely
corrupt your database. However, you can create a Core Data store based
on SQLite as long as you follow a few extra steps when setting up your
Core Data structures. You can also continue to use other types of Core
Data stores—that is, stores not based on SQLite—without any special
modifications.
You can't just put the SQLite database in the iCloud container, because it might get corrupted. (As you modify an SQLite DB, temporary files are created and renamed, so if the sync process starts copying those files, you'll get a corrupt database.)
If you don't want to move to Core Data, you can do what Core Data does: store your database in your document folder, and store a transaction log in the iCould container. Every time you change the database, you add those changes to a log file, so you can play them back and make equivalent changes on other devices.
This gets pretty complicated: aside from getting the log/reply logic right, you'll want to coalesce redundant changes and periodically collapse the log into a complete copy of the database.
You might have an easier time developing a solution if you can exploit knowledge of your application (Core Data has to solve the problem in the general case). For example, you could save invoices as separate files in the cloud container (text, Property List, XML, JSON, whatever), writing them out as the database changes and only importing ones if the system tells you they were created or changed.
In summary, your choice is either to migrate to Core Data or write a sync solution yourself. Which one is best depends on the particulars of your application.
Having an argument with my team. We are developing an application using SQLite and some want to add it to the repo (GIT) and some don't. Previously with RDBMS system there has been no perceived benefit of using VCS on the DB. However SQLite is a self contained file with no external dependencies so i assume, even though it is binary, that a commit of the project code + the SQLite file will give an accurate snapshot of the state of play at that point.
I also assume that a branch and merge would work as well.
Has anyone actually done this and if so does it work?
You'd get more benefit from GIT's versioning facilities if you stored a dump of the SQLite database (i.e. commands required to create it) rather than the database file itself. That way you could look at the history of the dump file and see tables or data being added etc.
Generally speaking, it's preferable to include full set of dependencies in a VCS repository. This makes your life a whole lot simpler.
If you're after versioning DB schema, check out Wizardby.