Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SQLite Is Serverless

sqlite.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 453 posts

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#11

Post by boublepop »

manigandham wrote: post #3

Why even write this? It's yet another convoluted use of the term and meaningless for SQLite of all things. Re: downvotes - what are people disagreeing with? That the term is not convoluted? That it's actually useful? That it helps to have more sub-definitions in an industry known for overloaded terms? I guarantee not a single person here has used "classic serverless" over "in-process" or "embedded" in their entire ca…

> It's yet another

Actually seems more like the original than yet another. And also it makes more sense “serverless” as in “there is no server” and not as in “someone else manages the server for you”.

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#12

Post by manigandham »

XelNika wrote: post #9
manigandham wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does it say 2007? Regardless it's vague and irrelevant material. Classic serverless has always been known as "in-process". The attempt at differences seems like adding marketing fluff rather than just removing the page entirely.

It doesn't say 2007 anywhere, but the page is clearly at least that old. https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlit... I also found material from 2004 with the term. https://www.tcl.tk/community/tcl2004/Presentations/D.Richard... > Regardless it's vague and irrelevant material It's not vague at all, the term makes sense to distinguish "in-process" from client/server models. The page also includes an…

I would love to know who uses "serverless" instead of "in-process". Why add a new term at all?

And if the definition has since been muddied, then all the more reason to avoid using it instead of creating even more niche definitions.

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#13

Post by tjoff »

manigandham wrote: post #3

Why even write this? It's yet another convoluted use of the term and meaningless for SQLite of all things. Re: downvotes - what are people disagreeing with? That the term is not convoluted? That it's actually useful? That it helps to have more sub-definitions in an industry known for overloaded terms? I guarantee not a single person here has used "classic serverless" over "in-process" or "embedded" in their entire ca…

> another convoluted use of the term and meaningless

Just as the term serverless itself?

I find this, old version, superior.

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#14

Post by Eikon »

> SQLite is an example of a classic serverless database engine. With SQLite, there are no other processes, threads, machines, or other mechanisms (apart from host computer OS and filesystem) to help provide database services or implementation. There really is no server.

Well, it's bending the overall consensus defining serverless as a managed / and or stateless service.

I never saw anyone using the term "serverless" to mean "embeded".

Using this definition, anything and everything that is not requiring a specific server to be served / distributed can be described as serverless.

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#15

Post by espadrine »

manigandham wrote: post #3

Why even write this? It's yet another convoluted use of the term and meaningless for SQLite of all things. Re: downvotes - what are people disagreeing with? That the term is not convoluted? That it's actually useful? That it helps to have more sub-definitions in an industry known for overloaded terms? I guarantee not a single person here has used "classic serverless" over "in-process" or "embedded" in their entire ca…

It is not meaningless, but perhaps unclearly expressed.

There is a fundamental point the the argument: you can distribute a database without segregating it.

Three methods to building a 1M+ users webapp:

1. A centralized database, eg. PostgreSQL. Typically it has a single-writer beefy machine.

2. A decentralized newSQL. Tables are automatically sharded for writes, among a set of database-only servers. Typically offered as cloud: CosmosDB, Cloud Spanner, Aurora.

3. A distributed system segregated per app. Each user has a dedicated sqlite file.

The third option would be simpler to code for, since it won’t have substantial scaling issues.

It is also easier for a lambda-like platform to provide: load the sqlite corresponding to the authenticated user, and the lambda code, and execute the code in sandbox.

Although one negative aspect for the AWS of this world would be lack of lock-in. It is relatively easy to migrate to another cloud service, or to mix cloud services.

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#17

Post by jankotek »

I think better name (and coined since 1990ies) is embedded db engine. MySQL, Firebird (InterBase) etc can also be linked into binary and run in the same process, without any type of sockets.

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#18

Post by manigandham »

espadrine wrote: post #15
manigandham wrote: post #3

Why even write this? It's yet another convoluted use of the term and meaningless for SQLite of all things. Re: downvotes - what are people disagreeing with? That the term is not convoluted? That it's actually useful? That it helps to have more sub-definitions in an industry known for overloaded terms? I guarantee not a single person here has used "classic serverless" over "in-process" or "embedded" in their entire ca…

It is not meaningless, but perhaps unclearly expressed. There is a fundamental point the the argument: you can distribute a database without segregating it. Three methods to building a 1M+ users webapp: 1. A centralized database, eg. PostgreSQL. Typically it has a single-writer beefy machine. 2. A decentralized newSQL. Tables are automatically sharded for writes, among a set of database-only servers. Typically offere…

The terms "in-process" or "embedded" have been used far longer than this page has existed.

"serverless" is a marketing term, then and now.

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#19

Post by IAmEveryone »

Eikon wrote: post #14

> SQLite is an example of a classic serverless database engine. With SQLite, there are no other processes, threads, machines, or other mechanisms (apart from host computer OS and filesystem) to help provide database services or implementation. There really is no server. Well, it's bending the overall consensus defining serverless as a managed / and or stateless service. I never saw anyone using the term "serverless"…

There's a section added in 2018 to deal with the apparent confusion.

It'd be a better idea to just delete the page. It may have been written long before the meaning changed, but it's pointless to fight a losing and completely insignificant battle over language.

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#20

Post by TamDenholm »

manigandham wrote: post #3

Why even write this? It's yet another convoluted use of the term and meaningless for SQLite of all things. Re: downvotes - what are people disagreeing with? That the term is not convoluted? That it's actually useful? That it helps to have more sub-definitions in an industry known for overloaded terms? I guarantee not a single person here has used "classic serverless" over "in-process" or "embedded" in their entire ca…

The same reason supermarkets put "gluten free" on things like butter, water and vegetables. While it may seem stupid and obvious to those informed and educated, theres a point in everyones life where they dont know anything about a subject and they need a first step. Hopefully, its a first step in a deeper understanding and education on the subject at hand.

I'm sure people will google stuff like "Is SQLite serverless?". There are no such thing as stupid questions, you're only stupid if you choose not to learn.

Post reply on HN