On Oct 3, 2010, at 2:21 PM, John Nagle wrote: > On 10/2/2010 3:06 PM, Seebs wrote: > >> I would agree that the word "nonstandard" seems to be a little strong and >> discouraging. sqlite is a source of joy, a small bright point of decent >> and functional software in a world full of misbehaving crap. While it >> does omit a few bits of SQL functionality, I'd call it perhaps a "slightly >> incomplete implementation" rather than a "nonstandard variant". > > That's a bit much. > > What SQLite leaves out is the heavy machinery needed for a active > production database being used by many processes. If you want to store > a modest amount of data for one process, perhaps with a rare conflict > when two programs hit the same table, SQLite is fine. But SQLite > doesn't scale. That's why it's "lite". > > Some of SQLite's good features, are achieved by rather brutal > means. For example, SQLite supports atomic transactions. That's > implemented by locking up all tables involved for the duration > of the entire transaction. This is fine for low-volume updates, > and a killer for high-volume systems. > > SQLite doesn't have a serious query optimizer, or partial table > locking, or concurrent transaction handling, or replication. > In other words, use SQLite in your desktop app to manage its data > or configuration parameters. Use MySQL or Postgres for your > web site.
Granted, but we're talking about whether or not SQLite complies with the SQL standard, not whether it's suitable for an e-commerce Web site or running the NYSE. Cheers Philip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
