3 ms·
I'd say the team is using it wrong. SQLite is really intended for embedded use, not a Postgres replacement. The two shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sent
by BuckRogers 5y ago
I'd say the team is using it wrong. SQLite is really intended for embedded use, not a Postgres replacement. The two shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. SQLite is weakly typed, performing autoconversion from ints to strings.
The value in SQLite is its light weight, and not it's SQL side. If you're building a mobile app and you're loading a lot of local data, it might be the right choice.
- pgwhalen 5y agoYou may have misunderstood, we're not using it as a postgres replacement. I agree with this take, hence my original assertion that it isn't a drop in replacement for a DB server. We are using it as a replacement for RocksDB - we need a richer way to store data than a simple key value store. It still runs on a server though, and therefore it would be useful to be able to read data remotely, even if that isn't the primary purpose.
- BuckRogers 5y agoMy mistake then. I read it as "we tried it as a Postgres replacement, even though many here suggest it was going to work". I've toyed with SQLite as replacement for a client-server database for personal projects. While I stand by my overall dim assessment of SQLite, with a statically typed language and a diligently maintained data access layer (ie. one-man project), I would endorse its use on the server.