*** 2,21 **** ---- ! 2004-08-08: SQLite would be really useful for me if it supported shared memory databases, so that unlike ':memory', multiple processes could share the same in-memory database. I am currently using Turck MMcache to share data among PHP scripts; if I could use SQLite instead with similar performance it would be really good. ---- 2003-04-15: The in-memory database is now in the CVS tree, though it is still mostly untested. ! 2003-05-09: In-memory databases are now a feature of the standard SQLite library. To open an in-memory database, use filename ":memory:". ---- ! _While connections to on-disk databases should not be carried across a Unix fork(), is there any reason not to do it with an in-memory database?_ (2003-10-21 by drh:) Not that I know of. ! DK: Of course, when you do the fork() you are creating a new copy of the in-memory db for the child process. So subsequent edits to the db in the child won't show up in the parents copy, and vice-versa. NgPS: Multiple connections to ":memory:" within a single process create a fresh database each time: --- 2,34 ---- ---- ! <html>2004-09-15: I've written an <a href="http://www.filipdewaard.com/ ! 21_SQLite_inmemory_databases.html">article</a> about memory databases in combination with PHP: ! <a href="http://www.filipdewaard.com/archives/21_SQLite_inmemory_databases.html">SQLite in- ! memory databases</a>.</html> ! ! ---- ! ! 2004-08-08: SQLite would be really useful for me if it supported shared memory databases, so that ! unlike ':memory', multiple processes could share the same in-memory database. I am currently using ! Turck MMcache to share data among PHP scripts; if I could use SQLite instead with similar performance ! it would be really good. ---- 2003-04-15: The in-memory database is now in the CVS tree, though it is still mostly untested. ! 2003-05-09: In-memory databases are now a feature of the standard SQLite library. To open an in- ! memory database, use filename ":memory:". ---- ! _While connections to on-disk databases should not be carried across a Unix fork(), is there any reason ! not to do it with an in-memory database?_ (2003-10-21 by drh:) Not that I know of. ! DK: Of course, when you do the fork() you are creating a new copy of the in-memory db for the child ! process. So subsequent edits to the db in the child won't show up in the parents copy, and vice-versa. NgPS: Multiple connections to ":memory:" within a single process create a fresh database each time: