CSV is also serverless..
CSV doesn't have a write-ahead log.
The file system it is stored on does.
SQLite Is Serverless
71–80 of 453 posts
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Those people wouldn't end up on a random documentation page for SQLite then, making this argument superfluous.
> I would love to know who uses "serverless" instead of "in-process". Why add a new term at all?
This discounts which term came first. Back in 2007 it was just fine to talk about this as being serverless, the marketing term gained popularity years later. They even talk about the more recent definition on the page, I really don't get why people in this sub thread get triggered by some random documentation page written over a decade ago. There's no need to further change or delete that page because this discussion is lacking any practical relevance.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#73> 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.
Waaaaait wouldn’t that mean the file system is the server, with some binary API and responsible for handling concurrent access and locks for the entire file? LOL.
Well you effectively report some of the workload normally handled by the server to the OS's filesystem layer, that's true. In particular you rely heavily on the FS locking working correctly. Calling the FS a "server" is a bit of a stretch though.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#74> 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.
Waaaaait wouldn’t that mean the file system is the server, with some binary API and responsible for handling concurrent access and locks for the entire file? LOL.
Serverless in this situation means that you don't really have to provision or setup an actual server to handle the database, the client itself just need the ability to read and write an SQLite file.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#75> 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.
I am not sure about MS Access. From what little I know 2 people opening from network drive would mostly result in database being corrupt.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#76The main problem that I see for using sqlite is exactly for it being 'Classic Serverless'. Because how does one keep an up te date backup? Deploying to Heroku, Dokku, AWS Lambda and such means the sqlite file will be lost on a crash or new deploy. Even a VM can crash. Export to S3 on every write? Maybe if changes do not happen often, so only for specific use cases (and actually I think you should just generate static…
It's just a single file. Easier to backup than any other database.
Also I don't think any cloud provider/database provides an always up to date backup other than a standby replica (which isn't also a backup exactly).
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#77This document is golden, serverless means an application reading and writing to the database in the process directly
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#78My 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.
On the one hand, the term serverless is really frustrating to me.
On the other hand, there's a certain amount of amusement I get from seeing "the cloud" become a marketing buzzword in the mid-late '00's, and now seeing the same thing happen with "serverless."
When you look at the implementation of the two "technologies", they're about 95% the same. Yet somehow they're pitched as these big revolutions.
In another decade when terminals or p2p become popular again we'll be hearing about some new buzzword like "Terran" computing, or "social" architecture or something.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#79> 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.
I am not sure about MS Access. From what little I know 2 people opening from network drive would mostly result in database being corrupt.
MS Access "allowed" it. SQLite actually works.