Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 07:30:21AM +1000, John Stanton wrote:
I have actually done that and it works well for a particular class of
applications, ones with a relatively small number of simultaneous users.
For large numbers we switch to PostgreSQL The basic architecture of
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 07:30:21AM +1000, John Stanton wrote:
I have actually done that and it works well for a particular class of
applications, ones with a relatively small number of simultaneous users.
For large numbers we switch to PostgreSQL The basic architecture of
Sqlite, and why
I had a musing while reading:
http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-6063599.html?part=rsstag=6063599subj=news
where it reminded me of one of MySQL's features:
MySQL's database is built so that it can use a range of different
storage mechanisms, tuned for different purposes,
I was afraid of that...it would be cool if someone created a sqlite
server which
handled the networking and serialization...I would take a crack at it
myself but
right now I don't have time.
Dan Kennedy wrote:
I had a musing while reading:
I have actually done that and it works well for a particular class of
applications, ones with a relatively small number of simultaneous users.
For large numbers we switch to PostgreSQL The basic architecture of
Sqlite, and why it is Lite, is that it uses a single file and file
locks for
I had a musing while reading:
http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-6063599.html?part=rsstag=6063599subj=news
where it reminded me of one of MySQL's features:
MySQL's database is built so that it can use a range of different
storage mechanisms, tuned for different purposes, such as
