I'd agree with Tim, focus on the merits and disadvantages of each without resorting to bashing.
Some suggestions: Eliminate: >>2. An SQLite database is exactly one file. SQL Server 7 has many files for each table in the database.<< Or merge it with #1. This isn't an advantage unless the database needs to be widely distributed. >>3. SQLite is much faster than SQL Server 7.<< While this may be true, you really should have data to support it, and not just general data that you find out there, but data specifically relating to your project. If your product will usually handle 3 million rows of data, perform some queries on this test data and see how well it will perform. Then you can give specific data like: SQLite performed an average of 32% better on sample data than did SQL Server 7. Change 4 to: >>SQLite is easy to administrate in a distributed environment. To distribute a database, all that is needed is to copy one file. SQL Server 7 is difficult to administer in a distributed environment. SQL Server 7 is best used as centralized database server, whereas SQLite is best used in a distributed environment. Further, licensing costs can be prohibitive for SQL Server 7 in a distributed environment, whereas it costs nothing to distribute SQLite.<< Change 5 to: >>SQL Server 7 is obsolete and the database is not upward compatible. When Microsoft discontinues support for SQL Server 7, it may no longer work on the latest Windows platform. SQL Server 7 can no longer be purchased directly from Microsoft.<< Merge 8, 10 into one. It would be more effective to merge 9 with 3 and run specific stats to verify this is true and get hard numbers. >> SQL Server 7 has higher system requirements than SQLite, so SQLite will work better in a distributed environment where the specs can't be so closely controlled. SQLite will also run on a wide range of operating systems and can be ported to almost any operating system without additional cost. SQL Server 7 runs only on Windows.<< Note in 11 that SQLite isn't an RDBMS, and doesn't accept network connections, so no extra configuration on firewalls is necessary, and is safer than SQL Server for the possibility of a network based attack. Drop the >>Microsoft has been known to sit on patches for years because it's inconvenient or costly to roll them out.<< in 12 and note that bug fixes in SQL Server 7 may not come since SS7 is no longer actively released. SQLite is actively developed, and bug fixes can be made by the user were this to change making it relatively future-proof. >>."Security through Obscurity" is regarded a fallacy in the cryptographic community at large.<< Back this up...there's lot's out there and providing sources will be far more effective than merely saying it. You're on the right track, providing some solid information will really sell this for you :) On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:16:27 -0500, Downey, Shawn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks everyone for there input. See below for the arguments I've > compiled so far. Please let me know if I am incorrect on any of these > items. Do we have any speed comparisons between SQLite and SQL Server > 7? > > I do understand we are talking Apples and Oranges here. Never the less, > I need to do the comparison! If not, I might as well go get an MS > certification (not that there's anything wrong with that... :-). > > SQLite Advocacy > > 1. SQLite has "Zero Installation". This means that all that is > needed to run SQLite is to copy the database on the machine along with > the program which accesses it. There is no need to adjust the registry > for SQLite. Installing SQL Server 7 on the other hand is complex and > sometimes problematic. Even moving SQL Server 7 to a different > directory on the same machine is difficult. > > 2. An SQLite database is exactly one file. SQL Server 7 has many > files for each table in the database. > > 3. SQLite is much faster than SQL Server 7. > > 4. SQLite is easy to administrate. All that is needed is to copy > one database file. SQL Server 7 is very difficult for the novice end > user to backup or to deploy database updates in the field. SQL Server 7 > is best used for a centralized database (rather than a distributed > database) since it is so hard to deploy data updates. > > 5. SQLite has an active community with good people which help each > other solve rather complex programming problems. > > 6. SQL Server 7 is obsolete and the database is not upward > compatible. When Microsoft discontinues support for SQL Server 7, it > may no longer work on the latest Windows platform. SQL Server can no > longer be purchased directly from Microsoft. > > 7. SQL server 7 is very expensive. Development tools and > deployment license costs for SQL Server 7 are very high. SQLite is free > and can be developed using free compilers or Microsoft compilers as > desired. > > 8. SQL Server 7 requires powerful hardware to run. SQLite runs on > cheaper hardware. > > 9. SQLite has a small memory footprint and SQL Server 7 is a very > very large memory footprint. > > 10. SQLite runs on almost ever operating systems. SQL Server runs > on MS Windows exclusively. > > 11. By using SQLite you eliminate a possible source of virus > infection. SQL server has been targeted in at least one major virus > outbreak. > > 12. Changes can be made to the source code for SQLite by the end > user. In this way, any bugs in SQLite can be fixed quickly. If > something was wrong with SQL Server 7, Microsoft is unlikely to address > it as quickly. Microsoft has been known to sit on patches for years > because it's inconvenient or costly to roll them out. > > 13. Open source and Free Software such as SQLite has proven to be > more robust and more secure than proprietary software due to open, > intense, and ongoing peer reviews by the user community. "Security > through Obscurity" is regarded a fallacy in the cryptographic community > at large. > > > Shawn M. Downey > MPR Associates > 632 Plank Road, Suite 110 > Clifton Park, NY 12065 > 518-371-3983 x3 (work) > 860-508-5015 (cell) > > -- If it ain't broke, break it. How else are you going to figure out how it works?
