3 ms·
Inefficiency or not, if you start down the path of SQLite, you need to invest good amount of time refactoring into another DB if you feel like migrating away.
by mekster 5y ago
Inefficiency or not, if you start down the path of SQLite, you need to invest good amount of time refactoring into another DB if you feel like migrating away.
When I realized SQLite would store any type of data in any kind of column type, it was obvious SQLite is different from others. They only added strict types about a year ago but scared me enough not to use it.
And how is SQLite any less secure? You can flat out copy its entirety using pg_dumpall. I'm not talking about security.
- TheRealPomax 5y agoWhile that's an unfortunate discovery, I do need to point out that that's a problem of your own making, not SQLite's fault. SQLite is very clear on what you can expect, with dynamic typing being one of the main differences between it and "regular SQL" databases. Yes, plenty of folks just go for SQLite blindly, but the consequences of that aren't SQLite's doing: if you take the time to read through https://www.sqlite.org/features.html https://www.sqlite.org/features.html because you want to know what it can actually do, you'll almost certainly click through to https://www.sqlite.org/omitted.html https://www.sqlite.org/omitted.html because you'll want to know what it doesn't do, and then you'll see the "See also the Quirks, Caveats, and Gotchas of SQLite." link and you're going to follow it an read through https://www.sqlite.org/quirks.html https://www.sqlite.org/quirks.html because those sound pretty important to know about before you commit to using something that is going to be your application/service data store for the foreseeable future.