Steve, On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 06:03, Steve Howe wrote: > Because they are slow, many are buggy, require too much work for setup, etc. > Dbmail is so much nicer... don't you think ? > The idea behind SQLite is having a quick and easy setup; a version > working out of the box and that would be just ok for MANY > installations. I'm not in any way thinking in replacing MySQL or > PostgreSQL.
Fair enough. I'm not really convinced the extra layer is necessary for low volume sites. But the set up tools and a single source for pop/imap/config that dbmail provides are nice. > RB> OTOH, the dbmail facilitates adding other dbms easy enough, so why not > investigate > RB> further. A Sleepycat Berkeley DB (Transactional Data Store version, > possibly) > RB> system could be worth looking at too. > Do they support SQL ? If they do, might be worth investigating. > Also SQLite is a fraction of their size... I don't believe they do support SQL. As all of the db stuff is abstracted out, I don't think that's actually a problem. But it does mean that inside the db_* methods, things get very different. > RB> One thing tho': After reading the SQLLite page, I'm not too sure if it > would > RB> play nice with all the server processes... ? > It should be, unless you have thousands of transactions per second. > But if you do, you'll be better using a full RDBMS anyway. >From the FAQ, it says that it uses table level locking when separate processes want write-access (read access is fine). But as you say, probably not a problem unless the mail system gets real busy. -- Richard Barrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
