Interesting thread. It started as a discussion of small footprint, embeddable
non-SQL databases and has ranged all over the place.
For the original purpose of this thread, it certainly sounds like SQLite fits
the bill. It's a great package. If you need SQLite's ease of use and
simplicity, but
For non-SQL you could look into Kyoto Cabinet, which is Berkeley DB-like. Or
ZODB which is a Python Object databes.
--
Piet van Oostrum p...@vanoostrum.org
WWW: http://pietvanoostrum.com/
PGP key: [8DAE142BE17999C4]
Nu Fair Trade woonartikelen op http://www.zylja.com
--
In article 4d3c8d53$0$44021$742ec...@news.sonic.net,
John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
Google's BigTable and Facebook's Cassandra offer impressive
performance at very large scale. But they're way overkill for
a desktop app. Even the midrange systems, like CouchDB, are
far too much
On 12/4/2010 5:42 PM, Jorge Biquez wrote:
Hello all.
Newbie question. Sorry.
As part of my process to learn python I am working on two personal
applications. Both will do it fine with a simple structure of data
stored in files. I now there are lot of databases around I can use but I
would like
In article pan.2011.01.23.06.09.16@pfln.invalid,
Deadly Dirk dirk@pfln.invalid wrote:
The same thing applies to MongoDB which is equally fast but does allow ad
hoc queries and has quite a few options how to do them. It allows you to
do the same kind of querying as RDBMS software, with the
On 1/22/2011 10:15 PM, Deadly Dirk wrote:
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 16:42:36 -0600, Jorge Biquez wrote:
Hello all.
Newbie question. Sorry.
As part of my process to learn python I am working on two personal
applications. Both will do it fine with a simple structure of data
stored in files. I now
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:19 PM, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
On 1/22/2011 10:15 PM, Deadly Dirk wrote:
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 16:42:36 -0600, Jorge Biquez wrote:
Hello all.
Newbie question. Sorry.
As part of my process to learn python I am working on two personal
applications.
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 16:42:36 -0600, Jorge Biquez wrote:
Hello all.
Newbie question. Sorry.
As part of my process to learn python I am working on two personal
applications. Both will do it fine with a simple structure of data
stored in files. I now there are lot of databases around I can
On Dec 4, 10:42 pm, Jorge Biquez jbiq...@icsmx.com wrote:
Hello all.
Newbie question. Sorry.
As part of my process to learn python I am working on two personal
applications. Both will do it fine with a simple structure of data
stored in files. I now there are lot of databases around I can
On Dec 6, 2:17 am, Steve Holden st...@holdenweb.com wrote:
On 12/5/2010 12:59 AM, CM wrote:
SQlite itself is around 300 kilobytes. That's negligible. It is also
already in Python, so you'd have to purposefully exclude it in
creating your executable to save those 300 kb and thus the
On 06/12/2010 16:35, CM wrote:
On Dec 6, 2:17 am, Steve Holdenst...@holdenweb.com wrote:
On 12/5/2010 12:59 AM, CM wrote:
SQlite itself is around 300 kilobytes. That's negligible. It is also
already in Python, so you'd have to purposefully exclude it in
creating your executable to save
On 01/-10/-28163 02:59 PM, CM wrote:
On Dec 6, 2:17 am, Steve Holdenst...@holdenweb.com wrote:
snip
Just as a matter of interest where do you get the information that the
average user has a 3.9 MB/s path to the Internet?
First, I should have specified the average *U.S.* user, and in so
You're also confusing MB/s (bytes) with Mb/s (bits).
Yes I am. I think I will now recuse myself from the proceedings...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 12/4/2010 8:44 PM, Monte Milanuk wrote:
On 12/4/10 3:43 PM, Jorge Biquez wrote:
I do not see a good reason for not using Sqlite3 BUT if for some reason
would not be an option what plain schema of files would you use?
Would shelve work?
There are some systems for storing
On 12/05/10 10:43, Jorge Biquez wrote:
I do not see a good reason for not using Sqlite3 BUT if for some reason
would not be an option what plain schema of files would you use?
Assuming you don't want SQL, you can use filesystem-based database. Most
people doesn't realize that a filesystem
On 12/05/2010 03:41 AM, Alan Gauld wrote:
Why not use SQL?
SQLlite comes with Python, is small, easy to use and if necessary
can be used in-memory and as such fast.
The only reason I could see using something other than sqlite3
for such a use-case would be if the OP has to support Python
In article 4cfb802...@dnews.tpgi.com.au,
Lie Ryan lie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/05/10 10:43, Jorge Biquez wrote:
I do not see a good reason for not using Sqlite3 BUT if for some reason
would not be an option what plain schema of files would you use?
Assuming you don't want SQL,
On 04-12-2010 23:42, Jorge Biquez wrote:
Hello all.
Newbie question. Sorry.
As part of my process to learn python I am working on two personal
applications. Both will do it
fine with a simple structure of data stored in files. I now there are lot of
databases around I
can use but I
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:01 AM, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
On 12/4/2010 8:44 PM, Monte Milanuk wrote:
On 12/4/10 3:43 PM, Jorge Biquez wrote:
I do not see a good reason for not using Sqlite3 BUT if for some reason
would not be an option what plain schema of files would you use?
On 12/5/2010 12:59 AM, CM wrote:
SQlite itself is around 300 kilobytes. That's negligible. It is also
already in Python, so you'd have to purposefully exclude it in
creating your executable to save those 300 kb and thus the 1/13th of a
second additional time it would take average (3.9 MB/s)
Hello all.
Newbie question. Sorry.
As part of my process to learn python I am working on two personal
applications. Both will do it fine with a simple structure of data
stored in files. I now there are lot of databases around I can use
but I would like to know yoor advice on what other
Jorge Biquez jbiq...@icsmx.com writes:
Hello all.
Newbie question. Sorry.
As part of my process to learn python I am working on two personal
applications. Both will do it fine with a simple structure of data
stored in files. I now there are lot of databases around I can use but
I would
I use sqlite3, it is fairly simple, fast and not too strict.
-- Gnarlie
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Jorge Biquez jbiq...@icsmx.com wrote:
Newbie question. Sorry.
If it isn't you're on the wrong list :)
training so no pressure on performance). One application will run as a
desktop one,under Windows, Linux, Macintosh, being able to update data, not
much, not
At 05:02 p.m. 04/12/2010, you wrote:
Jorge Biquez jbiq...@icsmx.com writes:
Hello all.
Newbie question. Sorry.
As part of my process to learn python I am working on two personal
applications. Both will do it fine with a simple structure of data
stored in files. I now there are lot of
On Dec 4, 6:43 pm, Jorge Biquez jbiq...@icsmx.com wrote:
At 05:02 p.m. 04/12/2010, you wrote:
Jorge Biquez jbiq...@icsmx.com writes:
Hello all.
Newbie question. Sorry.
As part of my process to learn python I am working on two personal
applications. Both will do it fine with a
Jorge Biquez jbiq...@icsmx.com writes:
I do not see a good reason for not using Sqlite3 BUT if for some
reason would not be an option what plain schema of files would you
use? I am sorry to insist.
SQLite stores the entire database in a single file. Does that answer the
question? I'm not
Hello all.
Understood perfectly.
Will forget other alternatives. Sqlite3 is the
best option. Thanks for the explanation and time.
Sqlite for single user and Postgresql will be the choice.
Thanks all.
Take care
Jorge Biquez
At 06:01 p.m. 04/12/2010, you wrote:
Jorge Biquez
On 12/4/10 3:43 PM, Jorge Biquez wrote:
I do not see a good reason for not using Sqlite3 BUT if for some reason
would not be an option what plain schema of files would you use?
Would shelve work?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
29 matches
Mail list logo
