3 ms·

> SQLite is an example of a classic serverless database engine. With SQLite, there are no other processes, threads, machines, or other mechanisms (apart from h

by Eikon 7y ago

> SQLite is an example of a classic serverless database engine. With SQLite, there are no other processes, threads, machines, or other mechanisms (apart from host computer OS and filesystem) to help provide database services or implementation. There really is no server. Well, it's bending the overall consensus defining serverless as a managed / and or stateless service. I never saw anyone using the term "serverless" to mean "embeded". Using this definition, anything and everything that is not requiring a specific server to be served / distributed can be described as serverless.

IAmEveryone 7y ago
There's a section added in 2018 to deal with the apparent confusion. It'd be a better idea to just delete the page. It may have been written long before the meaning changed, but it's pointless to fight a losing and completely insignificant battle over language.
- chungy 7y ago
  Hard disagree. The "neo-serverless" version has always been extremely confusing to me. I expect serverless to mean the absence of a server. In SQLite's particular case, it's subverting the expectation that has persisted since the beginning of time (of databases) that a database must be managed by a server.
rumanator 7y ago
> Well, it's bending the overall consensus defining serverless as a managed / and or stateless service. That assertion is quite the stretch because there is no consensus on what serverless actually means. The only thing that exists is that the concept of function-as-a-service is being forced as a placeholder for serverless, but some vendors try to manipulate the definition to include their managed services offerings.
masklinn 7y ago
The SQLite page dates back to 2007 at least: https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlit... > Using this definition, anything and everything that is not requiring a specific server to be served / distributed can be described as serverless. The distinction is useful to make when similar systems traditionally rely on a client/server model. Which many DBMS do, to say nothing of RDBMS. That it is server-less is a distinctive feature of SQLite as an RDBMS.

by Eikon 7y ago

IAmEveryone 7y ago

There's a section added in 2018 to deal with the apparent confusion. It'd be a better idea to just delete the page. It may have been written long before the meaning changed, but it's pointless to fight a losing and completely insignificant battle over language.

chungy 7y ago
Hard disagree. The "neo-serverless" version has always been extremely confusing to me. I expect serverless to mean the absence of a server. In SQLite's particular case, it's subverting the expectation that has persisted since the beginning of time (of databases) that a database must be managed by a server.

rumanator 7y ago

> Well, it's bending the overall consensus defining serverless as a managed / and or stateless service. That assertion is quite the stretch because there is no consensus on what serverless actually means. The only thing that exists is that the concept of function-as-a-service is being forced as a placeholder for serverless, but some vendors try to manipulate the definition to include their managed services offerings.

masklinn 7y ago

The SQLite page dates back to 2007 at least: https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlit... > Using this definition, anything and everything that is not requiring a specific server to be served / distributed can be described as serverless. The distinction is useful to make when similar systems traditionally rely on a client/server model. Which many DBMS do, to say nothing of RDBMS. That it is server-less is a distinctive feature of SQLite as an RDBMS.