On 02/21/2015 01:22 AM, Ned Deily wrote:
SQLite is one of the most widely-used, best-documented, best-tested,
and well-respected software packages in the world.
yes but is still sql. there are a couple of small scale not-sql
databases that look interesting. problem with them is that the crea
Am 20.02.2015 um 15:16 schrieb Dennis Lee Bieber:
The middle-ground is probably something like the embedded version of
Firebird (pity there has been no updated book -- "The Firebird Book" came
out in 2004, v1.5 while 2.5 is current [Whoops, looks like there /is/ an
update, print-on-deman
Ned Deily writes:
>> Same reason lots of people have forked Postgres. Or you might just want
>> to customize it.
> Well, for whatever reason one might have, one can: it's public domain
> software.
Yes, but unlike with most FOSS software, your version has much lower
quality assurance than the "o
In article <871tljepea@jester.gateway.pace.com>,
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Ned Deily writes:
> > (though I don't know why anyone would want to fork it).
>
> Same reason lots of people have forked Postgres. Or you might just want
> to customize it.
Well, for whatever reason one might have, on
Ned Deily writes:
> (though I don't know why anyone would want to fork it).
Same reason lots of people have forked Postgres. Or you might just want
to customize it.
> I imagine that is done as an incentive to help
> finance the on-going development and maintenance of SQLite.
It's a pretty un
In article <54e7b0da.7060...@stoneleaf.us>,
Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 02/20/2015 01:17 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> > SQLite always seemed bloated (from the embedded NoSQL point of view) and
> > fragile to me, and the vendor plays an annoying anti-forking trick,
> > which is that the code is releas
On 2015-02-20 13:17, Paul Rubin wrote:
> For stuff like browser bookmarks or other typical embedded database
> purposes, I don't see why SQL or relations are needed. Berkeley DB
> is a transactional key-value store that's been around for decades
> and is way simpler than SQLite, and there's other
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
>> I don't know of a free-software concurrent RDBMS which can be considered
>> lighter than that. (No, MySQL doesn't count; its concurrency is
>> *unreliable* and it commonly loses data silently. Don't use MySQL.)
>
> I thoug
On 02/20/2015 01:17 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> SQLite always seemed bloated (from the embedded NoSQL point of view) and
> fragile to me, and the vendor plays an annoying anti-forking trick,
> which is that the code is released but the developers' test suite is
> secret and proprietary (can be license
On 20/02/2015 21:17, Paul Rubin wrote:
Ben Finney writes:
I don't know of a free-software concurrent RDBMS which can be considered
lighter than that. (No, MySQL doesn't count; its concurrency is
*unreliable* and it commonly loses data silently. Don't use MySQL.)
I thought they fixed MySQL tra
Ben Finney writes:
> I don't know of a free-software concurrent RDBMS which can be considered
> lighter than that. (No, MySQL doesn't count; its concurrency is
> *unreliable* and it commonly loses data silently. Don't use MySQL.)
I thought they fixed MySQL transactions years ago, with the InnoDB
On 02/19/2015 02:23 PM, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:26:04 -0800 (PST), ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> I'll point out that five people in this thread (by my
>> count) have said that Postgresql requires a significant
>> amount of work to setup and use. Only you and Steven claim
>>
On 02/19/2015 01:47 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:26 AM, wrote:
>> I'll point out that five people in this thread (by my
>> count) have said that Postgresql requires a significant
>> amount of work to setup and use. Only you and Steven claim
>> the opposite. (And it soun
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:26:04 -0800 (PST), ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>I'll point out that five people in this thread (by my
>count) have said that Postgresql requires a significant
>amount of work to setup and use. Only you and Steven claim
>the opposite.
Well, I claim the opposite too.
>Or I c
On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 10:39:04 PM UTC-7, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 02/18/2015 09:26 PM, memilanuk wrote:
> > On 02/18/2015 09:16 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> >> memilanuk writes:
> >>
> >>> In the past I've been waffling back and forth between a desktop
> >>> client/server setup, or a web-b
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:26 AM, wrote:
> I'll point out that five people in this thread (by my
> count) have said that Postgresql requires a significant
> amount of work to setup and use. Only you and Steven claim
> the opposite. (And it sounds to me like Steven does not
> have a lot of experi
On 02/19/2015 12:23 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> Very possibly. With modern dependency management, it isn't hard to install
>> Postgresql:
>>
>> sudo aptitude postgresql
>>
>> or equivalent should work. For primitive operating systems wi
On 02/19/2015 12:07 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On 02/18/2015 07:13 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> Chris Angelico wrote:
> SQLite misses some important features that makes it better suited as a
> simple datastore, not much unlike shelve. And network use is not one
On 02/19/2015 09:03 AM, Tim Chase wrote:
> On 2015-02-19 15:04, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> On 19/02/2015 14:17, Tim Chase wrote:
> Parameterized queries is just a pet peeve of mine that I wish to
> include here. SQLite misses it and I miss the fact SQLite misses
> it. The less SQL one need
On 2015-02-18 20:05, ru...@yahoo.com.dmarc.invalid wrote:
> Sqlite offers concurrent access already.
> What Sqlite doesn't offer is high performance concurrent write
> access. That is, it locks the entire database for the duration
> of a write operation. Given that most such operations are pre
On 2015-02-19 15:04, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 19/02/2015 14:17, Tim Chase wrote:
Parameterized queries is just a pet peeve of mine that I wish to
include here. SQLite misses it and I miss the fact SQLite misses
it. The less SQL one needs to write in their code, the happier
one
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> This saves the SQL processor from recompiling the SQL into internal
>> byte-code every time. It's handy if you know a given query will run
>> multiple times with the same "shape" parameters. It's not essential,
>> and some optimize away th
On 19/02/2015 14:17, Tim Chase wrote:
On 2015-02-19 05:32, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/02/2015 00:08, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
Parameterized queries is just a pet peeve of mine that I wish to
include here. SQLite misses it and I miss the fact SQLite misses
it. The less SQL one needs to write in t
On 2015-02-19 05:32, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 19/02/2015 00:08, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
> > Parameterized queries is just a pet peeve of mine that I wish to
> > include here. SQLite misses it and I miss the fact SQLite misses
> > it. The less SQL one needs to write in their code, the happier
> > o
On 2015-02-18, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:17 AM, wrote:
>>> 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 b
On 2015-02-18, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 18.02.2015 12:21, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> 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 b
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 03:43:36 +, Mark Lawrence
wrote:
>After a wonderful relationship lasting many happy years I dumped Firefox
>a few weeks ago for Chrome. A few anxious moments gave me pause for
>thought, but overall I'm happy to have changed. However is anybody
>aware of a "new kid on t
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:22:57 +1300, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
>
>How does sqlite3 miss parameterized queries? It supports
>DB-API parameter subsitution with '?' according to the
>docs.
It's actually parameterized views that I meant. Not queries. SQLite
misses the ability to write parameterized views.
Ben Finney wrote:
> What's the difference betwen a “requirement” and a “major requirement”?
"I require a gold-plated Mercedes, if I can have it for less than $30,000.
My major requirement is for some sort of personal transport."
*wink*
--
Steve
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Very possibly. With modern dependency management, it isn't hard to install
> Postgresql:
>
> sudo aptitude postgresql
>
> or equivalent should work. For primitive operating systems with no
> dependency management available, Firefox could co
ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 02/18/2015 07:13 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:> Chris Angelico wrote:
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 concur
On 02/18/2015 09:26 PM, memilanuk wrote:
> On 02/18/2015 09:16 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> memilanuk writes:
>>
>>> In the past I've been waffling back and forth between a desktop
>>> client/server setup, or a web-based interface with everything on one
>>> computer. At this point I'm leaning toward t
On 19/02/2015 00:08, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
Parameterized queries is just a pet peeve of mine that I wish to
include here. SQLite misses it and I miss the fact SQLite misses it.
The less SQL one needs to write in their code, the happier one should
be.
https://docs.python.org/3/library/sqlite
On 02/18/2015 09:16 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
memilanuk writes:
In the past I've been waffling back and forth between a desktop
client/server setup, or a web-based interface with everything on one
computer. At this point I'm leaning toward the latter.
So, it's been many exchanges back and forth,
Mario Figueiredo wrote:
Parameterized queries is just a pet peeve of mine that I wish to
include here. SQLite misses it
How does sqlite3 miss parameterized queries? It supports
DB-API parameter subsitution with '?' according to the
docs.
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pyth
memilanuk writes:
> In the past I've been waffling back and forth between a desktop
> client/server setup, or a web-based interface with everything on one
> computer. At this point I'm leaning toward the latter.
So, it's been many exchanges back and forth, and you still aren't
telling us what sp
On 02/18/2015 08:59 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> I would summarise it by saying [...] if you want a standalone database on
> a single machine, use SQLite.
It sounds like SQLite would also work fine if that single-machine scenario was
a web-app with not-too-many users trying
to write at once.
--
~E
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:15:30 -0800, Ethan Furman
wrote:
>At the risk of using actual data, I looked this up at
>http://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html:
>
>
>Checklist For Choosing The Right Database Engine
Interesting.
A couple of months ago I asked in comp.databases what the differences
were b
On 02/18/2015 08:36 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
memilanuk writes:
They would need to be able to set up the application (and whatever
database) on their laptop or PC, wherever that may be, and spend their
time administering the event, not the database engine.
So, the database will only be accessed
memilanuk writes:
> They would need to be able to set up the application (and whatever
> database) on their laptop or PC, wherever that may be, and spend their
> time administering the event, not the database engine.
So, the database will only be accessed by exactly one application, on
exactly t
On 02/18/2015 09:09 PM, Ben Finney wrote
> memilanuk writes:
>[...]
> If you want networked access, you need concurrent access and access
> permissions, etc.
Sqlite has concurrent access. It doesn't have concurrent
access that will support a large number of writers or high
volume of writes.
A
On 02/18/2015 08:09 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
I have a hard time picturing that few people stressing a modern
computer system enough to where SQLite couldn't keep up (thinking
web-based interface using Flask or something similar). In the latter
case, one of the over-arching priorities is that it be
At the risk of using actual data, I looked this up at
http://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html:
Checklist For Choosing The Right Database Engine
* Is the data separated from the application by a network? → choose
client/server
Relational database engines act as a bandwidth-reducing data filt
On 02/18/2015 07:13 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> 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
>>> cod
On 02/18/2015 04:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On 02/18/2015 01:14 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>>> Johannes Bauer writes:
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 f
memilanuk writes:
> At this point... I don't think concurrency is going to be a major
> requirement for what I have in mind.
What's the difference betwen a “requirement” and a “major requirement”?
If you want networked access, you need concurrent access and access
permissions, etc.
SQLite does
On 02/18/2015 05:08 PM, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
>[...]
> 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 lay
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:33 PM, memilanuk wrote:
> At this point... I don't think concurrency is going to be a major
> requirement for what I have in mind. For one project, only a few people
> will be writing to the DB, and only by a stroke of luck would it be at the
> same time, and it would be
On 19/02/2015 02:13, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
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 intermedi
On 19/02/2015 02:48, Steve Hayes wrote:
All of which has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the OP's
question, which said nothing about number of users, but how the
software handles dates.
Very true, but charging off like this at massive tangents is one of the
reasons I love being here.
On 02/18/2015 04:03 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
Is there anything *good* that sits in between the two extremes of
SQLite and PostgreSQL?
What do you need a RDBMS to do, and what do you not need?
The answers to those questions vary hugely between different people (and
most people probably don't thin
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:37:49 +1100, Chris Angelico
wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:17 AM, wrote:
>>> 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 i
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 23:14:32 +1100, Chris Angelico
wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Johannes Bauer wrote:
>> SQLite and Postgres are so vastly different in their setup,
>> configuration, capabilities and requirements that the original developer
>> has to have done a MAJOR error in judge
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 22:21:35 +1100, Chris Angelico
wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Johannes Bauer 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 loc
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:19:25 +0200, "Frank Millman"
wrote:
>Hi all
>
>sqlite3 does not have a DATE type, but the python module does a pretty good
>job of providing one -
The Rootsmagic genealogy program uses SQLite for its database,
I don't know whether or to what extent it uses Python to int
Chris Angelico wrote:
>> 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 ar
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Mario Figueiredo 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
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:32:36 -0800, memilanuk
wrote:
>
>Is there anything *good* that sits in between the two extremes of SQLite
>and PostgreSQL?
>
>I've tinkered with MySQL years ago (in conjunction with PHP) and was a
>little unhappy with some of the things
MariaDB is backwards compatible wi
memilanuk writes:
> Okay... this might be a question with a blindingly obvious answer, but
> I haven't seen any recommendations otherwise so I'll ask anyway ;)
>
> Is there anything *good* that sits in between the two extremes of
> SQLite and PostgreSQL?
What do you need a RDBMS to do, and what
On 02/18/2015 02:52 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
Chris also wrote:
But SQLite3 is *not* great if you look on it as a database engine
comparable with DB2, PostgreSQL, and even MySQL.
Sure, the LITE in SQLite means you don't get some things. There is still a
huge amount of software that doesn't ne
ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 02/18/2015 01:14 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Johannes Bauer writes:
>>> 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.
Swit
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:17 AM, rurpy wrote:
> That you would equate that to a JSON blob [...]
Chris wrote:
> I didn't equate them.
>> Chris wrote earlier:
>>> and you manipulate it just the same as if it were a big fat blob
>>> of JSON
That sure sounds like equating.
Chris also wrote:
> But
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:17 AM, wrote:
>> 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 d
On 02/18/2015 04:21 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Johannes Bauer 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.
>>>
On 02/18/2015 01:14 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Johannes Bauer writes:
>> 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 yo
Johannes Bauer writes:
> 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
On 18.02.2015 13:14, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Johannes Bauer wrote:
>> SQLite and Postgres are so vastly different in their setup,
>> configuration, capabilities and requirements that the original developer
>> has to have done a MAJOR error in judgement so that a c
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> SQLite and Postgres are so vastly different in their setup,
> configuration, capabilities and requirements that the original developer
> has to have done a MAJOR error in judgement so that a change from one to
> the other would not be ill-a
On 18.02.2015 12:21, Chris Angelico wrote:
> 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
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Johannes Bauer 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 kind
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 t
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Frank Millman wrote:
> My accounting software supports three databases - MS Sql Server, PostgreSQL,
> and sqlite3.
>
> sqlite3 is not suitable for 'heavy-duty' applications, but it is ideal for
> demos and one-man businesses. Anyone can try out my software so long
"Mark Lawrence" wrote in message
news:mc1g3n$q8j$1...@ger.gmane.org...
> On 18/02/2015 06:19, Frank Millman wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> sqlite3 does not have a DATE type, but the python module does a pretty
>> good
>> job of providing one -
>>
>> However, the following does not return a date object
"Chris Angelico" wrote in message
news:CAPTjJmrB+55CVgN6zTUawRf=rzn9ltavi5tzhjsyvhhywk1...@mail.gmail.com...
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Frank Millman wrote:
>> However, the following does not return a date object -
>>
> cur.execute('SELECT CAST(? AS DATE)', ('2015-03-31',))
>>
On 18/02/2015 06:19, Frank Millman wrote:
Hi all
sqlite3 does not have a DATE type, but the python module does a pretty good
job of providing one -
import sqlite3
conn = sqlite3.connect(':memory:', detect_types=sqlite3.PARSE_DECLTYPES)
cur = conn.cursor()
cur.execute('CREATE TABLE test (dob DA
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Frank Millman wrote:
> However, the following does not return a date object -
>
cur.execute('SELECT CAST(? AS DATE)', ('2015-03-31',))
>
cur.fetchone()
> (2015,)
>
> I don't know how easy this would be to implement, but it would be nice if it
> coul
Hi all
sqlite3 does not have a DATE type, but the python module does a pretty good
job of providing one -
>>> import sqlite3
>>> conn = sqlite3.connect(':memory:', detect_types=sqlite3.PARSE_DECLTYPES)
>>> cur = conn.cursor()
>>> cur.execute('CREATE TABLE test (dob DATE)')
>>> cur.execute('INSE
77 matches
Mail list logo
