---- P Kishor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/29/07, Ludvig Strigeus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm looking at using Sqlite as a storage backend for a program. Using SQL is > > a little bit overkill and much more than we need. How complicated would it > > be to interface to the btree subsystem directly? Sqlite seems very modular > > from the looks of it, but has anyone attempted anything like this before? > > > > The functionality I need is key->value maps with support for lookup by an > > exact key, insertion, iteration of all keys in the database, removal. > > Transactions would also preferably be needed. > > > > > why bother with SQLite then? Use the right tool for the job -- use BerkeleyDB. > > > -- > Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ > Nelson Inst. for Env. Studies, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ > Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org/education/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > collaborate, communicate, compete > ===================================================================== > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >
Size is a constraint for me. I see that SQLite can be around 170KB where BerkeleyDB is around 500K. I also see that the SQL statements can be converted to byte code. Is this byte code more efficient that the SQL statement in code size? I'm looking at embedding a DB of some type into a Single Board Computer with no OS. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
