4 ms·
> If you don't need that, you might as well read the entire dataset into memory and be done with it. Over in-memory data structures,SQLite gives you: - Persis
by nicoburns 5y ago
> If you don't need that, you might as well read the entire dataset into memory and be done with it.
Over in-memory data structures,SQLite gives you:
- Persistence
- Crash tolerance
- Extremely powerful declarative querying capabilities
> if you have read-only traffic you don't need sqlite replication.
I agree with you that the main use-case here is backup and data durability for small apps. Which is pretty big deal, as a database server is often the most expensive part of running a small app. That said, there are definitely systems where latency of returning a snapshot of the data is important, but which snapshot isn't (if updates take a while to percolate that's fine).
- mbreese 5y agoI’d argue that persistence also includes data portability. It’s very handy to be able to just copy your data around in a SQLite file. That’s not really a feature that’s terribly useful in a remote deployed application, but very handy if you have multiple applications all reading the same data.
- mrkurt 5y agoIt does! "Get a to-go database" is already on the roadmap. :)
- jbergens 5y agoThere are in-memory db's that also write to disk. They can offer both persistence and crash tolerance. I tried o e that even had a better solution to the object-relational mismatch, you just got objects, which made development very easy.