3 ms·
If you're dealing with such a static single-machine dataset, why not go for SQLite instead of PostGres? There'd be much less setup overhead
by VHRanger 6y ago
If you're dealing with such a static single-machine dataset, why not go for SQLite instead of PostGres?
There'd be much less setup overhead
- mongol 6y agoI was thinking the same thing first, but does SQLite parallelize work it does?
- twoodfin 6y agoHow good is SQLite’s parallelism these days?
- doteka 6y agoIt’s alright, concurrent reads should not be a problem at least. Most drivers implement some features to make it easier.
- tetha 6y agoSqlite is single-writer for a single database. I mean. Of course, VHRanger, only your team will need to write to the database, and your team will make sure that only one person on your team will write to it. Eh. I've been there too many times. Oh, but yes, your team will also figure out the fallout if things to wrong. Ah.. Ok. Maybe those are enterprise concerns: Sqlite doesn't scale regarding multiple users reading and writing. Of course it's a read only dataset, but do you know the bouquet of views and derived tables data scientists create around a read-only dataset? Hah. Oh and of course these are not critical, but if they get lost, shit hits the fan because it takes multiple weeks to rebuild them. I've been in that swamp enough times to just install postgres and stop caring. Takes me 2 more hours now, but avoids weeks of discussions in the future.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Volt 6y agoRemember that we're comparing this to awk…
- Scarbutt 6y agoThere's no overhead. apt-get install postgres create user create database