This is not new or unknown information, why is this on the front page?
SQLite Is Serverless
51–60 of 453 posts
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#52Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I mean i dont really like the term serverless at all anyway, as its meaning isnt really literal, its more literal and correct in the context of SQLite IMO. Unfortunately thats just the world we live in. It also annoys me that the word "literally" now has a secondary definition in the dictionary to mean figuratively, just gotta get used to it, despite my dislike for it.
Meanings and definitions of words change over time as they get used. Another prime example would be the word "Hacker".
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#54My understanding of serverless = easily scalable, managed service. But somehow the word annoys people. Maybe we should find a better word?
serverless it mean no server but everything use servers, yep we should find a better expression.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#55In case SQLite is not enough and you need redundant servers or clustering, there's also database servers that use SQLite as storage engine: http://rqlite.com/ https://dqlite.io/
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#56Two 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".
I know, but have you anyone calling "embedded databases" "serverless databases" in the last 10 years?
It's like someone found this page and felt very smart about it, because they stick it to the serverless crowd.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#57a 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…
I have found that you can go for a disturbingly-long period of time using primitive schemes like LINQ Objects JSON to persist your business data before things start to get hairy. Personally, I would say 10 megs of persisted data is about the upper limit before I am going to start reaching for SQLite. If you start to get clever with schemes like one file per serialized entity, you could potentially avoid using a 3rd p…
will you store large objects like images or audio file directly in SQL?
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#58My understanding of serverless = easily scalable, managed service. But somehow the word annoys people. Maybe we should find a better word?
serverless it mean no server but everything use servers, yep we should find a better expression.
Peer-to-peer networking in its most pure form does not need a dedicated/central server. Each machine hosts a client/server instance locally.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#59My understanding of serverless = easily scalable, managed service. But somehow the word annoys people. Maybe we should find a better word?
My understanding was that cloud = easily scalable, managed service.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#60My understanding of serverless = easily scalable, managed service. But somehow the word annoys people. Maybe we should find a better word?
> My understanding of serverless = easily scalable, managed service.
There is already a term for that concept: managed services. There is no such thing as a managed service that's designed not to be scalable. Some implementations may be better at scaling than others, but that's it.
The serverless buzzword is pure marketing.