Re: simple database solution without root access
Joel Rees writes:
>2014/07/07 10:39 "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>:
>>
>> Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > 2014/07/07 5:08 "Nuno Magalhães" <nunomagalhaes@eu.ipp.pt>:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 9:03 PM, kamaraju kusumanchi
>> >> <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > I am still exploring all the suggestions given by others. But SQLite looks
>> >> > very promising. There is a Perl DBI Interface to SQLite which might be what
>> >> > I am after.
>> >>
>> >> >> > 2) I want the data to be in text format.
>> >>
>> >> SQLite keeps data in binary files.
>> >
>> > What do you mean by that?
>>
>> Presumably, as opposed to human-readable text files.
>
>Uhm, is text not a subset of binary (when talking about the contents of the files that implement a database)? Does SQLite encode
>text fields in some non-human-readable manner?
My typical experience is that when people distinguish "text" vs
"binary" files, they mean the whole file can reasonably be made sense
of in a text editor (that's not a precise definition, of course, but I
think it serves the purpose). When I open an SQLite database I have
handy with emacs, it is rife with nulls and other non-printing
characters. Similarly, when I try to run 'less' on it, the response
is
babs:506$ less house.db
"house.db" may be a binary file. See it anyway?
Arguably, as people typically use the distinction, it's not a text
file. Yes, I can extract the text fields, as human-readable ASCII,
but that does not make it a text file.
>Okay, thinking about it a bit, the lack of delimiters, and the puzzling nature of binary zero when trying to read it as text,
>might be what Nuno was referring to. Comma delimited files provide visible, understandable delimiters,
And what just about anybody else would mean by a text file, as well.
>Oh, and the INTEGER PRIMARY KEY is never readable as TEXT.
>
>For some people seeking to keep data in text format, that might disqualify SQLite. Apparently not the OP?
My impression (I'd have to go back and recheck) is that it
disqualified it for the OP, as well.
Reply to: