On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Mario Figueiredo <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > I usually think of my relationship with postgre as similar to what I > experienced with Git. At first I was just dumbstruck by the whole > thing and my first reaction was to ignore it and just do version > control as I knew with the tools I knew. But once my brain clicked > into 'Git mode' and I realized its philosophy and its processes, I > immediately recognized the benefits and understood why everyone was > telling me Git was easy to use and highly useful.
(Side point: If you're going to treat PostgreSQL the way you'd treat a girlfriend/boyfriend, you should probably be careful of how you address him. "Postgres" or "PostgreSQL", but not usually "Postgre".) This is a quite apt analogy. You have to get your head around some fundamentals, but once you do, life becomes amazing. >>then there is SQLite, which does 99% of what I want it to do other than >>network use. > > SQLite misses some important features that makes it better suited as a > simple datastore, not much unlike shelve. And network use is not one > of them, since you can actually implement concurrent sqlite access by > coding an intermediate layer. Assuming of course we are talking about > a small number of concurrent users. This is what I was saying: it's fine for purposes like Firefox's bookmarks and settings and such (which I think was what it was originally developed for?). Not so fine over a network. Adding an intermediate layer is a lot more effort than you might think. By the time you've gone there, you should be looking at PostgreSQL anyway. I tried to bolt networking support onto a couple of different databasing systems, back in the 90s, and it was faintly ridiculous... I mean, it worked, but if I'd had today's Postgres, I would never have done anything of the sort. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
