Live data from Hacker News

SQLite Is Serverless

sqlite.org

411–420 of 453 posts

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#411
post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But SQLite has rdbms features. I remember being able to show tables and do SQL queries in SQLite DBs.

Those are relational database features, not RDBMS features. The SQLite file format specifies a way to organize, store and retrieve fairly arbitrary data using a relational database model. The library knows how to handle SQL to describe the work being done. The SQL is optional, one can, with the specification, read/write SQLite files in many other ways. There are almost no RDBMS features in SQLite. There are many many…

Whilst .tar files are not an RDBMS. I can assure you that SQLite more than qualifies as a RDBMS.

Even the popular vote says it is: https://www.google.com/search?q=sqlite+rdbms

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#412
post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok but you cant really say you support network access if you rely on it to be flawless. Working fast, maybe but not reliably working if your network is not super reliable is not really support.

It was a different time.

Back in the day, which was a Wednesday

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#413
post #322
post #196

> It is important to understand these two different definitions for "serverless". When a database claims to be "serverless", be sure to discern whether they mean "classic serverless" or "neo-serverless". It's really not important to understand that distinction, because this author seems to be the only one making it. Everyone knows what "serverless" means at this point, and it's not an embedded DB.

This such an air-headed comment to make. You must realize that page describing how SQLite is “serverless” has been up probably longer than your entire adult life. It is important in its context, they are not trying to “redefine” (lol) the term.

> (This section was added on 2018-04-02)

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#414
post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've spent half an hour or so looking at this thread, and my take away is that you're largely just confusing matters even further. > It's just a file format. This is clearly incorrect. It does encompass a file format, but it also contains code to manage that file. The existence of sqljet does not change this, it's merely a different database management system that uses the same file format. You also seem to mostly ig…

You can read and write sqlite files entirely without the library. The file format is available on the sqlite site. SQLJet proves the point that you don't need 139,000 lines of C code to use sqlite files.

I'm sure you could make a tool which could read and write to SQL Servers mdf files. That wouldn't change that SQL Server is a RDBMS.

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#415
post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This such an air-headed comment to make. You must realize that page describing how SQLite is “serverless” has been up probably longer than your entire adult life. It is important in its context, they are not trying to “redefine” (lol) the term.

> (This section was added on 2018-04-02)

That’s exactly the point, the section was added to note the new definition of serverless vs the one that has been there for over a decade.

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#416
post #235
post #2

Choose your own definitions... but SQLite is not serverless by common parlance. Author creates two definitions for serverless which don't match the common usage. Serverless is more about DevOps / deploy experience than how the program leverages OS processes internally. Apparently MS and AWS are ISPs? Maybe SQLite could be serverless if you defined it as incapable or running as a server on its own?

Serverless used to have a very clear definition: not having or using a server, so SQLite is a perfect example of serverlessness. I was extremely confused when the newfangled definition (called neo-serverless on TFA) showed up, or your definition for that matter. Who ever thought up theses confusing meanings for a word that used to be perfectly clear? You don't need an ISP to have a server. Any computer or program tha…

Or is it any program that _responds_ to comms on a network port. The "serve" part of "server" ;)

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#417
post #329
post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This such an air-headed comment to make. You must realize that page describing how SQLite is “serverless” has been up probably longer than your entire adult life. It is important in its context, they are not trying to “redefine” (lol) the term.

It doesn’t matter. It is not the generally accepted definition of serverless. The meaning of a word is based on how it is generally used, and almost nobody means this when they use the word “serverless”. At this point trying to use the word in this way just creates a bunch of unnecessary confusion. Call it something else so we can move on to more important (and clear) discussions. (Also there are a lot of assumptions…

Although clearly different in your world, to me serverless meant that it can run without a central server (it was used in peering systems, eg games in the 90's, and co-distributed systems workers sharing info - a bit like block chain in the 00's). Occasionally, it was used when the app was working offline.

I think it highly ironic that the marketing hype just upended what's really going on. The new stuff's 100% server bound, as most people realise.

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#418
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am working on RediSQL[1] and I am about to launch a managed version. The interface will be either HTTP or Redis protocol, you create your database, and daily I will back it up on S3. (If interested you can subscribe for updated here: https://simplesql.carrd.co/ [1]: https://redisql.com/

this looks very interesting...can you please post some benchmarks in your docs for reference?

Benchmarks are always tricky, but sometimes useful, so yes I should post some of them.

Right now I am busy with releasing the v2, but after that I should definitely do some more marketing.

Anyhow, to give you an order of magnitude, on memory data storage we reach ~80k inserts for second. On a machine with 1vCPU and 3GB of RAM, a 15$/month box from DO.

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#419
post #387
post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, you still haven't answered the question: What is it that an RDBMS has that SQLite doesn't have? > It's no more an RDBMS than a .docx file is. Thanks for the idea. Your argument is like saying this: Microsoft Word is not a word processor -- it's a file format. I mean, yes, Word has a file format; but it's far more than just a format specification. > Sure they do. If you write the logic to do so, Right, b…

> First of all, you still haven't answered the question: What is it that an RDBMS has that SQLite doesn't have? And RDBMS is a well defined thing and is literally what the acronym expands to mean. This is very old technology with an interesting history and I really implore you and anybody reading this to go read up on it. It's not just whatever we assume it to be or some kind of data bucket with SQL. > Microsoft Word…

> > Microsoft Word is not a word processor -- it's a file format.

> No, don't be obtuse. I'm saying that .docx is a file format.

I'm afraid I'm not the one being obtuse. That statement is a mirror; please have a look.

> Precision of thought.

Which is why "SQLite is only a file format" is a false statement, and you shouldn't be making it.

> But you don't need the SQLite library to work on SQLite files. You don't need even need SQL.

That's like saying btrfs isn't a filesystem, because grub knows how to read it. The core functionality of SQLite is the query system. The fact that it's got a well-defined file specification which other projects can read is one of its features, not the sum of everything that SQLite is.

> I literally sat in a meeting last week where a senior decision-maker at a client wouldn't accept delivery of some software because it used SQLite and didn't want to add maintenance of yet another database to their overworked DBA staff and didn't want to hire a dedicated person to manage it. So now, instead of just taking delivery of the software, some of it has to be rewritten to use the client's RDBMS system, which in turn actually will add workload to the overworked DBA staff and will also perform worse.

Finally, something remotely concrete, rather than a repetition of the same false statement.

So the problem you're trying to solve is that people see "SQL" and think "Oracle": A massive installation which requires separate resources, both in terms of servers and manpower to maintain it.

I can see why you want to try to correct that false belief. But your solution seems to be to introduce another false belief. Imagine you're successful in getting people to accept that "SQLite is just a file format". Five years from now, someone else will be posting this to HN:

"I literally sat it a meeting last week where a senior decision-maker at a client wouldn't accept delivery of some software because it used SQLite, and he said SQLite is just a file format like JSON; and they need advanced SQL querying, safe transactions, and safe access by multiple accounts. So now, instead of taking the delivery of the software, some of it has to be rewritten to use the client's RDBMS system."

You're not going to fix one misconception by introducing another. One better thing to say would be the truth:

"SQLite allows us to embeds database functionality into your application, so there's no need for a separate stand-alone database."

Or, in fact, to do what this article does, and try to hijack current hype around "serverless":

"SQLite is a serverless database -- you don't need to install and maintain a new RDBMS; it's embedded inside the application itself. No additional maintenance necessary."

Re: SQLite Is Serverless

#420
post #342
post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have full support for SQL, it means some queries can run for a few seconds, possibly even minutes (even sqlite supports some form of bfs). So will you just time-out those requests? That would make a lot of possible uses suddenly impossible. I might consider the unmetered option, if the performance gain is worth the 6x cost of other providers. For web and games, maybe your existing model could work, but then al…

Hummm, what you mean by data science? Like running analysis in a Jupiter notebook? Indeed I am not sure this case is a good fit...

Yes, that's what I meant. And possibly for ML preprocessing.

Just out of curiosity, who do you imagine your users will be?

Post reply on HN