CSV is also serverless..
SQLite Is Serverless
21–30 of 453 posts
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#22Why 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…
I have seen that page for around 10 years or so (except the section that was added in 2018). The term has a very clear meaning and consistent uses within the docs (and consistent with my common sense understanding of the word too). It is not SQLite's fault that AWS and co muddles the water with their usage of the term
It's not their fault. It's not anybody's fault. Language evolves.
But if you wouldn't write it this way today, you should just change it, instead of drawing your readers into a pointless fight over semantics.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#23> Of those that are serverless, SQLite is the only one known to this author that allows multiple applications to access the same database at the same time.
IIRC, MS Access allowed that, which explained a lot of its popularity.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#24a bit tangential, but when do you move form using in-application data structures (maps, trees, vector/arrays) to using a database? Is it basically when the data doesn't fit in memory? I've been programming for almost a decade and I've never come across needing a database... (for context, it's ten years without anything web related) I'm interested in them and I'd love to learn SQL but I can't even think of a use case outside of managing user in some web based application
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#25Why 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…
Wouldn't it be better to say "SQLite is an embedded database and not client/server". Easily understood using very well-known and absolutely clear terms.
Saying "serverless" is trying to sum up that definition into a single word. It wasn't that useful back then and now has been further overloaded. Who is going to google "serverless" today and learn about SQLite's meaning of it?
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#26a bit tangential, but when do you move form using in-application data structures (maps, trees, vector/arrays) to using a database? Is it basically when the data doesn't fit in memory? I've been programming for almost a decade and I've never come across needing a database... (for context, it's ten years without anything web related) I'm interested in them and I'd love to learn SQL but I can't even think of a use case…
Persistence, portability, and durability. SQLite is an actual file on disk, can be easily read by multiple programs/languages, and has write-ahead logging to keep your data safe from crashes.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#27> 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.
Hard disagree. The "neo-serverless" version has always been extremely confusing to me. I expect serverless to mean the absence of a server.
In SQLite's particular case, it's subverting the expectation that has persisted since the beginning of time (of databases) that a database must be managed by a server.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#28a bit tangential, but when do you move form using in-application data structures (maps, trees, vector/arrays) to using a database? Is it basically when the data doesn't fit in memory? I've been programming for almost a decade and I've never come across needing a database... (for context, it's ten years without anything web related) I'm interested in them and I'd love to learn SQL but I can't even think of a use case…
> when do you move form using in-application data structures (maps, trees, vector/arrays) to using a database?
The killer feature of databases, including no-sql or older ones like BerkeleyDB, is multiprocess synchronization.
If two programs (or two copies of the same program) need to coordinate their data, a database is often far easier to use than writing your own transaction layer through files, mutexes, and other primitives.
Web applications, such as forums or discussion boards, have many users and processes adding data simultaneously. That's why databases are so popular in web backends.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#29Serverless, like all embedded databases ;-)
In the sense you don't need to provision an additional piece of infrastructure to power your application :-)
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#30> 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"…
> Well, it's bending the overall consensus defining serverless as a managed / and or stateless service.
That assertion is quite the stretch because there is no consensus on what serverless actually means. The only thing that exists is that the concept of function-as-a-service is being forced as a placeholder for serverless, but some vendors try to manipulate the definition to include their managed services offerings.