Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There are over one trillion SQLite databases in active use

sqlite.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 92 posts

Re: There are over one trillion SQLite databases in active use

#71

Post by thepasswordis »

jb1991 wrote: post #65
thepasswordis wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The code of ethics is a 1500 year old "code of ethics" meant to govern the lives of benedictine monks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._Richard_Hipp That might provide some context. edit: haha, this is what I get for skimming the wikipedia article. He has a PhD in computer science, but the full "doctorate of philosophy" is written out instead of abbreviation on that wikipedia article. My pattern matcher needs tuning,…

I think you are taking what “Ph.D.” stands for to be his actual area of study.

Okay that's embarassing. Serves me right for just skimming his article. Thanks for the correction, edited my post.

Re: There are over one trillion SQLite databases in active use

#72

Post by Someone »

Taywee wrote: post #62
ec109685 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their extensive test library is proprietary, so they ensure the path of least resistance for companies is to hire themselves to make improvements to the library. That has helped ensure there are no forks given quality would be inferior. It also kept SQLite out of the browser since there are no competing implementations of it.

SQLite is extensively used in web browser codebases. If you check your Firefox profile, it's well-packed with SQLite databases.

I’m fairly sure that refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_SQL_Database:

“Web SQL Database is a deprecated web browser API specification for storing data in databases that can be queried using SQL variant.

The API is supported by Google Chrome, Opera, and the Android Browser.

The W3C Web Applications Working Group ceased working on the specification in November 2010, citing a lack of independent implementations (i.e. using database system other than SQLite as the backend) as the reason the specification could not move forward to become a W3C Recommendation.”

Re: There are over one trillion SQLite databases in active use

#73

Post by sdfghderwg »

dang wrote: post #63
sdfghderwg wrote: post #19

Love god? What? What an oddly discriminatory thing to have on the code of ethics... EDIT: I'm convinced this must be some sort of forgotten April fool's remnant.

Let's not get distracted by an extraneous provocation. As you can imagine, this has come up frequently when people run into that bit, and tends to lead to the same discussion over and over (and ultimately, religious flamewar). There's a new site guideline about this actually: " Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article and rush to the thread to complain about it. Find something interesting to comment…

> "Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article and rush to the thread to complain about it. Find something interesting to comment about instead."

So you agree it's a provocative thing. Good, that's all I meant to convey.

Re: There are over one trillion SQLite databases in active use

#74

Post by monopoledance »

thepasswordis wrote: post #28
sdfghderwg wrote: post #19

Love god? What? What an oddly discriminatory thing to have on the code of ethics... EDIT: I'm convinced this must be some sort of forgotten April fool's remnant.

The code of ethics is a 1500 year old "code of ethics" meant to govern the lives of benedictine monks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._Richard_Hipp That might provide some context. edit: haha, this is what I get for skimming the wikipedia article. He has a PhD in computer science, but the full "doctorate of philosophy" is written out instead of abbreviation on that wikipedia article. My pattern matcher needs tuning,…

He and his wife do seem religious: https://www.hwaci.com/drh/

I doubt a missionary christian would make that 'code of ethics' as a joke.

Guess we need a SQLight fork for those brave enough to query reality.

Re: There are over one trillion SQLite databases in active use

#75

Post by starik36 »

ntumlin wrote: post #17
andkon wrote: post #8

Don’t forget to count all the cruise missiles, too!

Those tend to fall out of the “active use” category not long after entering it, so it’s probably not a big factor. On a more serious note, had there been something special about SQLite supporting military use of their project that prompted this? Otherwise that’s the point of free software, people are free to do (mostly) whatever they want with it. Including building weapons. SQLite is so prevalent, it’s almost like p…

> Those tend to fall out of the “active use”

At least you don't have to write garbage collection code for those. It just crashes.

Re: There are over one trillion SQLite databases in active use

#76

Post by garmaine »

Someone wrote: post #72
Taywee wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SQLite is extensively used in web browser codebases. If you check your Firefox profile, it's well-packed with SQLite databases.

I’m fairly sure that refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_SQL_Database : “Web SQL Database is a deprecated web browser API specification for storing data in databases that can be queried using SQL variant. The API is supported by Google Chrome, Opera, and the Android Browser. The W3C Web Applications Working Group ceased working on the specification in November 2010, citing a lack of independent implementation…

What a bullshit reason. This is why we can’t have good things.

Re: There are over one trillion SQLite databases in active use

#77

Post by ziml77 »

throwanem wrote: post #33
sdfghderwg wrote: post #19

Love god? What? What an oddly discriminatory thing to have on the code of ethics... EDIT: I'm convinced this must be some sort of forgotten April fool's remnant.

> No one is required to follow The Rule...[The SQLite developers] view The Rule as their promise to all SQLite users of how the developers are expected to behave. This is a one-way promise, or covenant. In other words, the developers are saying: "We will treat you this way regardless of how you treat us." I don't see a problem here, despite my own disinterest in following the Christian faith or any other. It's not ha…

It put me off until I read that part about the code that's laid out being optional.

They're not forcing anything on anyone. I'm perfectly fine with that.

Re: There are over one trillion SQLite databases in active use

#78

Post by Taywee »

Someone wrote: post #72
Taywee wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SQLite is extensively used in web browser codebases. If you check your Firefox profile, it's well-packed with SQLite databases.

I’m fairly sure that refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_SQL_Database : “Web SQL Database is a deprecated web browser API specification for storing data in databases that can be queried using SQL variant. The API is supported by Google Chrome, Opera, and the Android Browser. The W3C Web Applications Working Group ceased working on the specification in November 2010, citing a lack of independent implementation…

I see, thanks. I don't totally agree, though. The comment implied that SQLite's test suite being proprietary is what "kept SQLite out of the browser" by preventing forks, when what kept SQLite out of the browser was just that there were no other high-quality embeddable SQL libraries. Perhaps the test suite being non-proprietary would have allowed for easier forking, but the lack of an available open test suite certainly doesn't *prevent* forks of a public domain codebase, and nothing prevents competing embedded SQL libraries other than the lack of motivation to compete with SQLite.

Even if SQLite's test suite was open, I wouldn't see any big forks taking off, because why would you really want to build a competitor to something that's already super easy and free to use, extremely high quality, very high performance? What really is the drive? If SQLite ever does something the community really doesn't like, then a fork would be worth starting, but unless that happens, I don't see any point, and I really don't see that happening any time soon, given the consistent quality and power of SQLite.

Re: There are over one trillion SQLite databases in active use

#79

Post by detaro »

garmaine wrote: post #76
Someone wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m fairly sure that refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_SQL_Database : “Web SQL Database is a deprecated web browser API specification for storing data in databases that can be queried using SQL variant. The API is supported by Google Chrome, Opera, and the Android Browser. The W3C Web Applications Working Group ceased working on the specification in November 2010, citing a lack of independent implementation…

What a bullshit reason. This is why we can’t have good things.

It's sort-of misleading IMHO. A shared backend would be fine (i.e. I believe the independent IndexedDB implementations all end up putting stuff into sqlite, but nevertheless count as independent since they demonstrate that the API isn't tied to it), but the spec draft said

> User agents must implement the SQL dialect supported by Sqlite 3.6.19.

as the only definition on what's allowed SQL, which is a no-go for a spec. The authors could have provided a specification of a required SQL dialect that's sufficient to implement it from scratch/on top of another database, but decided to abandon the effort instead.

Re: There are over one trillion SQLite databases in active use

#80

Post by Taywee »

detaro wrote: post #79
garmaine wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a bullshit reason. This is why we can’t have good things.

It's sort-of misleading IMHO. A shared backend would be fine (i.e. I believe the independent IndexedDB implementations all end up putting stuff into sqlite, but nevertheless count as independent since they demonstrate that the API isn't tied to it), but the spec draft said > User agents must implement the SQL dialect supported by Sqlite 3.6.19. as the only definition on what's allowed SQL, which is a no-go for a spec…

Ah, I see. The wording on the Wikipedia page isn't as good as the wording on the specification draft itself:

> This document was on the W3C Recommendation track but specification work has stopped. The specification reached an impasse: all interested implementors have used the same SQL backend (Sqlite), but we need multiple independent implementations to proceed along a standardisation path.

It seems like they didn't just need a specified SQL dialect, but multiple actual implementations, but I might be reading into the wording incorrectly.

Post reply on HN