BDB 4.3.28 has other facet like a) crash when zero diskspace. b) if there is abrupt crash then recovery can fail. also the time taken during recover is very long. c) foot print is too big. d) Performance is very good on most platforms. e) Support is not very responsive. f) Cannot copy the file directly should use dump and load facility which is again time consuming. g) If used in multiprocess env then abrupt crash will render the application behaviour unpredictable due to locks held in shared area.
Sqlite is stable.In comparison using sqlite in-mem db is hassle free. Support is excellent. Sqlite has RTree module which is similar to your requirement. U can check more from the mail archives. Finally it depends on usage context and in our case we found sqlite more suitable. regard ragha ****************************************************************************************** This email and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! ***************************************************************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence Gold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:29 am Subject: [sqlite] Using Sqlite in place of BDB > Hello, > > I work for a company which is seeking to replace its homegrown > database engine with a more robust, modern engine. I've looked at > BerkeleyDB, which would be ideal since all we really need are key/ > value pairs for our records and indexes, but its cost is rather > prohibitive. > > At this point I'm considering targeting SQLite's internal B-tree > API > directly, realizing that I'm assuming some risk as the API isn't > guaranteed to remain stable between releases. Before I delve into > this, can anyone suggest a better approach to using SQLite in a > lower- > level manner for storing key/value pairs? > > drh mentioned the SQLite Stored Statement Extension in a post last > year: > http://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@sqlite.org/msg23591.html > > Does it in fact have an API that would lend itself well to > key/value > pairs? > > Thanks! > > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@sqlite.org > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
