3 ms·
The part where they query individual rows through SQL queries isn't "cringe" because it is inefficient. It is "cringe", because you have degraded SQLite to noth
by imtringued 2y ago
The part where they query individual rows through SQL queries isn't "cringe" because it is inefficient. It is "cringe", because you have degraded SQLite to nothing but an overly verbose key value store.
Shared SQL databases tend to have very poor performance when you join across shards. In this case the downside of distributed joins is avoided by having very many small purpose built databases.
- kentonv 2y ago> It is "cringe", because you have degraded SQLite to nothing but an overly verbose key value store. Honestly I kind of agree with this. It feels like the main benefit over a key-value store at that point is just automatic management of secondary indexing. That said, most users of SQLite all along have used it as a local library, and the same arguments apply to all those use cases... and yet, SQLite exists and has all these features which "seem unnecessary" in that context. So they must have value?