On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsdu...@gmx.de> wrote: > On 18.02.2015 08:05, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> But if you need more facilities than SQLite3 can offer, maybe it's >> time to move up to a full database server, instead of local files. >> Switching to PostgreSQL will give you all those kinds of features, >> plus a lot of other things that I would have thought pretty basic - >> like ALTER TABLE. It was quite a surprise to learn that SQLite3 didn't >> support that. > > I see you're running a lawnmower. Maybe you should switch to a combine > harvester. That'll get you extra features like a reciprocating knife > cutter bar. I was quite surprised that regular lawnmowers don't support > those.
SQLite3 is fine for something that's basically just a more structured version of a flat file. You assume that nobody but you has the file open, and you manipulate it just the same as if it were a big fat blob of JSON, but thanks to SQLite, you don't have to rewrite the whole file every time you make a small change. That's fine. But it's the wrong tool for any job involving multiple users over a network, and quite probably the wrong tool for a lot of other jobs too. It's the smallest-end piece of software that can truly be called a database. I would consider it to be the wrong database for serious accounting work, and that's based on the ranting of a majorly-annoyed accountant who had to deal with issues in professional systems that had made similar choices in back-end selection. You're welcome to disagree, but since PostgreSQL doesn't cost any money and (on Linux at least; can't speak for other platforms) doesn't take significant effort to set up, I will continue to recommend it. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
