Serverless SQLite
sql.lspgn.workers.dev
Serverless SQLite
1–10 of 167 posts
Re: Serverless SQLite
#2https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html
(first published 2007, before the more recent misuse of the term began)
Re: Serverless SQLite
#3Serverless SQLite … for read-only use cases
Re: Serverless SQLite
#4What would this be best used for?
Re: Serverless SQLite
#5I've also experimented with this, unfortunately the 50ms CPU time isn't enough for datasets larger than 1.5MB. And the wasm init add at least 100ms to each request even when "hot" in cache.
Also, out of a cost perspective, running a VM with SSD for cheap with SQlite will give much more requests than a CF worker for much less.
Adding writes to this is also very limited due to the max 1sec write per KV key limit.
Re: Serverless SQLite
#6SQLite was already serverless.
Re: Serverless SQLite
#7SQLite was already serverless. https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html
> SQLite was already serverless.
Yes but now it runs on someone else server! Wait a minute, this makes no sense...
'serverless' is perhaps the stupidest marketing buzzword developers have come up with.
Re: Serverless SQLite
#8https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html (first published 2007, before the more recent misuse of the term began)
Words can have multiple meanings and meanings of words can change.
Re: Serverless SQLite
#9https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html (first published 2007, before the more recent misuse of the term began)
All uses of "server" are bastardizations of the concept of a human who provides service.
Re: Serverless SQLite
#10https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html (first published 2007, before the more recent misuse of the term began)
Words can have multiple meanings and meanings of words can change.
Almost like how the English language has been literally hijacked and destroyed.
Language does change and evolve. The misuse and subsequent additional meaning for “literally” to now also be a simile for “figuratively” is a good example of how this isn’t necessarily always a good thing.