5 ms·
Unless you want to scale. I'm all for the rule of least power, but as soon as the app is exposed to multiple users I would ask and be sure about the expected nu
by Daycrawler 9y ago
Unless you want to scale. I'm all for the rule of least power, but as soon as the app is exposed to multiple users I would ask and be sure about the expected number of simultaneous users before going with SQlite instead of going with a Client/Server RDBMS. Still, the bound is pretty high if you keep your transactions short.
- geocar 9y agoIf you have the correct architecture, multiple users shouldn't matter at all-- I have used SQLite to store and query activity data with something like 10k concurrent "users" without difficulty on a single machine. I am beginning to suspect that MySQL, PostgreSQL, DB2, Oracle, BigTable, and others allow one to get so far with the wrong architecture, that maybe some even very experienced programmers believe that to go faster they have no choice but more threads.
- cousin_it 9y agoCan you describe the right architecture?
- ngrilly 9y agoHow do you workaround the fact that SQLite only supports a single writer? For example, your app could be blocked when you run a long operation like creating an index.
- hasenj 9y agoSQLite supports concurrent reads and writes since 2010 with the introduction of the "write ahead log" https://sqlite.org/wal.html https://sqlite.org/wal.html
- ngrilly 9y agoYes, but with a single writer at a time. From the link you shared: "However, since there is only one WAL file, there can only be one writer at a time".