3 ms·

> While SQLite is a really amazing database, most teams will benefit from avoiding it and going the PostgreSQL way instead. > Bazillions of engineering hou

by throwaway2037 3y ago

> While SQLite is a really amazing database, most teams will benefit from avoiding it and going the PostgreSQL way instead. > Bazillions of engineering hours have been spent to make Postgres the best backend database and choosing SQLite will inevitably force you to reinvent what Postgres already had for many years, in a fragile and buggy way. Could the same not also be said for MS SQL Server, Oracle, Sybase, MySQL, or MariaDB? The author offers no supporting evidence for this statement. Rewrite that: "Bazillions of engineering hours have been spent to make XYZ the best backend database..."

klysm 3y ago
Without giving evidence, I do agree that Postgres is a better database that serves the general case better. I use both in production for different purposes, but postgresql makes a lot more sense then SQLite as our primary database
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  Fair comment. First hand experience is important. HN is great for people sharing their technical experiences. I would not say that is "without giving evidence"!
znpy 3y ago
> Rewrite that: "Bazillions of engineering hours have been spent to make XYZ the best backend database..." What you're saying (and what the author is saying) however is clashing with the reality of so many developers using sqlite and being happy with it. I'd suggest to rewrite it another way: > Bazillion of developers think they'll need a full-fledged database for their new project while sqlite will cover most of their needs.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  This is a good reply. I want to clarify why I excluded SQLite in that list: It is not a database server (all of the others are); it is an embedded database. I say that with zero disrespect. I am 110% a SQLite fanboi. Honestly, I have no experience with PosgreSQL, but I have heard a lot of good things about it. The community looks amazing.
  - SJC_Hacker 3y ago
    > I want to clarify why I excluded SQLite in that list: It is not a database server (all of the others are); it is an embedded database. Agree. The confusion probably comes from the fact, the SQLite programming language interfaces still have the "connection" abstraction. Also, it would be great if there was a simple way to simply "load this entire database into memory". Its not too difficult to manually copy tables, but its much slower than it could be. Even a smallish ~250 MB database was taking like 30 seconds to copy row-by-row.

klysm 3y ago

Without giving evidence, I do agree that Postgres is a better database that serves the general case better. I use both in production for different purposes, but postgresql makes a lot more sense then SQLite as our primary database

throwaway2037 3y ago
Fair comment. First hand experience is important. HN is great for people sharing their technical experiences. I would not say that is "without giving evidence"!

znpy 3y ago

> Rewrite that: "Bazillions of engineering hours have been spent to make XYZ the best backend database..." What you're saying (and what the author is saying) however is clashing with the reality of so many developers using sqlite and being happy with it. I'd suggest to rewrite it another way: > Bazillion of developers think they'll need a full-fledged database for their new project while sqlite will cover most of their needs.

throwaway2037 3y ago
This is a good reply. I want to clarify why I excluded SQLite in that list: It is not a database server (all of the others are); it is an embedded database. I say that with zero disrespect. I am 110% a SQLite fanboi. Honestly, I have no experience with PosgreSQL, but I have heard a lot of good things about it. The community looks amazing.
- SJC_Hacker 3y ago
  > I want to clarify why I excluded SQLite in that list: It is not a database server (all of the others are); it is an embedded database. Agree. The confusion probably comes from the fact, the SQLite programming language interfaces still have the "connection" abstraction. Also, it would be great if there was a simple way to simply "load this entire database into memory". Its not too difficult to manually copy tables, but its much slower than it could be. Even a smallish ~250 MB database was taking like 30 seconds to copy row-by-row.