91–100 of 453 posts
As soon as i connect using the command line interface, it slows down significantly.
Just something to bear in mind if you want to use it with multiple processes!
It does allow multiple applications to access the same database at the same time, but when you do so it really hurts performance. I noticed this when i wrote a web crawler in go and used sqlite as the backend. As soon as i connect using the command line interface, it slows down significantly. Just something to bear in mind if you want to use it with multiple processes!
It does allow multiple applications to access the same database at the same time, but when you do so it really hurts performance. I noticed this when i wrote a web crawler in go and used sqlite as the backend. As soon as i connect using the command line interface, it slows down significantly. Just something to bear in mind if you want to use it with multiple processes!
Increasing the retry timeout can help, using WAL can help. I'm sure you've tried all this though.
My 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.
> 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.
Access is really meant for single-user scenarios I feel. Maybe the locking mechanism has gotten better but for multiuser access I tell people to use a real SQL database.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That just circle jerk. There is an agreed upon def of serverless. If we reduce things to the absurd we stop being able to reason about things. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serverless_computing
Sorta but not really. The fact people have worked backwards from marketing names to try and constructively define inherently self-contradictory branding (rather than create a descriptive category into which we place questionable names and ignore them) is an embarrassment for everyone except the marketing departments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Access is actually designed to work in a multiuser situation over a LAN for concurrent read and write. SQLite isn't afaik. As long as the LAN was cabled I never saw any issues. The only reason it was necessary to move to a server type database was because people were insisting on wifi networking.
I'm not sure I understand what the physical transport has to do with this. Can you please expand a bit?
> 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.
Apart from quality (!), SQLite's main advantage over these products is broad platform support. And continued existence.
> 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.