3 ms·

I keep seeing posts like these, and I'm wondering, whether "lite" still applies. It feels like all it is missing is the network layer and it would have more fea

by takeda 4y ago

I keep seeing posts like these, and I'm wondering, whether "lite" still applies. It feels like all it is missing is the network layer and it would have more features than original MySQL.

samkon 4y ago
It’s not “lite”, it’s “ite”. SQLite, as if it were a mineral, like Azurite.
- ckvjdonee 4y ago
  That's not really it is it? I thought they just dropped the extra L because it made more sense without it.
  - samkon 4y ago
    The author of SQLite suggested that the name is meant to sound like a mineral: https://changelog.com/podcast/201 https://changelog.com/podcast/201
masklinn 4y ago
The "lite" part is about being embedded, server-less, and single-file (at rest), it's not about being shitty, DBM did (and still does) that fine. Furthermore this is exactly in furtherance of your stated goals: sqlite supports indexes, by using automatic indexes it avoids the need to implement merge joins and hash joins.