3 ms·

Holy heck. What a coincidence. For the last few days, I was thinking about databases and was wondering if per user database can be possible. To be honest I was

Holy heck. What a coincidence. For the last few days, I was thinking about databases and was wondering if per user database can be possible. To be honest I was thinking about duckdb and sqlite3, with a mothership kinda postgreSQL database. I was thinking having a "your very own database" could be a justifiable reason for a price bump from pro to enterprise version. Then I was thinking of the idea of SQLite being something like a web-deliverable database instead of JSON responses through an REST API. Edit: I would really love to hear about this database per user approach. The more I think about this the more I am fascinated. Like for what amount of data-size justifies to have an SQLite3 db or something more bulkier? A CV has very small amount of data, so why not just use a JSON file? I wonder in that case if accessing a JSON file from a cloud storage could be more performant compared to SQLite3. You don't need to have the full set of utilities of SQL if you are just showing the entire data.

harryvederci 4y ago
Haha awesome! Good to see lots of people are starting to see SQLite as an option, I think it used to be misunderstood as a toy database. It'll take some time before I can really recommend this workflow, I'll make sure to add a blog to the withoutdistractions.com platform soon. I didn't expect this to hit the front page as it's my first "Show HN", otherwise I would have created one up front with an RSS feed. For me I went from Postgres to one central SQLite file to the current approach. I don't what the best approach would be, but I just put a user id column in every table and instead of having an integer primary key, I have a primary key of user id + table id. Then I have some Janet logic in place to get all table + column names except for a few private ones from the user's DB file, and put those in the "global" DB file. If anyone knows a better way to do this I'm all ears! I think SQLite has some kind of native way now to merge DB files with the same schema as well, but I think there was some limitation on the amount of tables you could apply this to. Not 100% sure, though.

harryvederci 4y ago

Haha awesome! Good to see lots of people are starting to see SQLite as an option, I think it used to be misunderstood as a toy database. It'll take some time before I can really recommend this workflow, I'll make sure to add a blog to the withoutdistractions.com platform soon. I didn't expect this to hit the front page as it's my first "Show HN", otherwise I would have created one up front with an RSS feed. For me I went from Postgres to one central SQLite file to the current approach. I don't what the best approach would be, but I just put a user id column in every table and instead of having an integer primary key, I have a primary key of user id + table id. Then I have some Janet logic in place to get all table + column names except for a few private ones from the user's DB file, and put those in the "global" DB file. If anyone knows a better way to do this I'm all ears! I think SQLite has some kind of native way now to merge DB files with the same schema as well, but I think there was some limitation on the amount of tables you could apply this to. Not 100% sure, though.