I find this article valuable. I made a mental note to check if SQLite is enough every time I consider one of the “serverless” options.
SQLite Is Serverless
41–50 of 453 posts
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#42> 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"…
The SQLite page dates back to 2007 at least: https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlit...
> Using this definition, anything and everything that is not requiring a specific server to be served / distributed can be described as serverless.
The distinction is useful to make when similar systems traditionally rely on a client/server model. Which many DBMS do, to say nothing of RDBMS. That it is server-less is a distinctive feature of SQLite as an RDBMS.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#43Two definitions of serverless?
I heard many, but what they're writing isn't one of them.
As far as I can tell SQLite was always called an embedded database, and never a serverless one.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#44CSV is also serverless..
CSV doesn't have a write-ahead log.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#45Two definitions of serverless? I heard many, but what they're writing isn't one of them. As far as I can tell SQLite was always called an embedded database, and never a serverless one.
The page is more that 10 years old. And it uses "serverless" in the sence of server-less aka not having a server. Which is pretty damn sensible terminology, as opposed to the newer "serverless" meaning" runs on some utility server outside of your care or control".
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#46Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> I would love to know who uses "serverless" instead of "in-process". Why add a new term at all? "In-process" is meaningless to non-IT people, they don't even know what a process is. The SQLite dev probably created the term for marketing purposes, i.e. the exact same reason cloud providers adopted it 10 years later. > And if the definition has since been muddied, then all the more reason to avoid using it instead of…
SQLite is meaningless to non-IT people.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#48CSV is also serverless..
CSV does not traditionally involve a server. RDBMS do.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#49My understanding of serverless = easily scalable, managed service.
But somehow the word annoys people. Maybe we should find a better word?
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#50a 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…
Is all your data on disk read-only and the data in RAM can be forgotten when your application finishes/closes? Then you don't need any of this.
If your state consists of a single data structure you could write it to disk into a new file and move-replace the old file. This works as long as you have a single instance of your application.
For anything more complex SQLite is a good way to keep your data in a consistent state. If you store it on a local drive, the performance is stellar.
Thinking about going multi-process or multi-user? SQLite can still give you an easy head-start because it performs OK in most situations with a database stored on a network drive.