I wanted to throw out a few more points about being parallel and scalable in terms of data storage?
What is the reason we want to be this way? Well, for tons of users and to mitigate risk across lots of machines. Yes, out of the box the value that Oracle provides is of a designation that satisfies these ideals for large scale systems. YET, as memory, hard drive space, processors with more cores, etc. come online, how could you get Sqlite to be SQLiteIKickOraclesButt? Well, I although I am pressed for time in development of a number of systems I don't have time to try this out but what Sqlite would need is a broker like server that could utilize it's existing features. The broker server could provide the same features as an Oracle by splitting inserts across multiple sqlites that hit multiple disks on multiple systems. The reality is that Sqlite has taken care of the nasty details of organizing data into a binary file cross platform, but you could literally take the database and write code above the engine itself that leveraged it's capabilities in such a way that it worked like a large scale database. Back years ago I was the head architect on a C based system in semiconductor. We had a crazy requirement to bust out hundreds to thousands of grey scale images from a camera source in a real time manufacturing solution. We had to store this data on the drive quickly. Before I took charge of the project we failed to get the necessary performance needed from an RDBMS on our first project time delivery limits. On the second round we bench marked all system components and figured out how we needed to architect a system from every hardware dependency. We ended up writing a buffer management library that basically was optimized to pre allocate memory of specific sizes for specific image sizes. This pre allocation allowed for the most optimal approach in moving data into memory. We then had writer threads that had thread synced access into that buffer and eventually the images would get written to an RDBMS. The reason I shot you the example above is to give you food for thought on how you might still utilize the great power of Sqlite if you don't need the massive cost or overhead of an Oracle. Sqlite is a beautiful thing due to it's simplicity. It is the most powerful database management solution on the planet for it's size (this is TOTALLY OBJECTIVE). Installing Oracle on a computer, being force fed crappy performing and unrobust java (the enterprise Oracle manager crashes on me with HUGE stack traces) too butt with Oracle makes for one nasty user experience. Yet with sexy Sqlite you can "xcopy" install that puppy and go to town. So in your thought on your desired solutions, IT MIGHT be good to think of what Sqlite offers and consider writing a separate library that could fulfill your extrea RDBMS requirements so you can take advantage of the sweetness this little data storage gym offers. I have personally written a socket based server on top of the database and it works very well. So I have actually scaled the database myself as I preached in this email. Don't be a WIMP and map shares to share a database... write a socket based beauty like YOURS TRULY! hehe For "most" solutions it is wonderful. After years and building millions of lines of code keeping the business delivery requirements fulfilled in the most simple manner seems to be the best approach for me. If you are the same, stay agnostic to all solutions available and run up a strategy that will give you the best of all worlds. And yes, at times you have to write a little EXTRA code to get there! : - ) Allan P.S. If somebody does decide to build enterprise Sqlite, I would love to throw in my 2 cents on how to write the stuff on the outside to add in the big dog features. I was working out tonight and while thinking about this I believe you could actually maintain the wonderfulness of the core engine, then scale the library from an outside piece of code. Then you can keep integrity on both sides of the fence and not make sqlite into sqlitetoomuch. On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:49 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > P Kishor, > >>> Most computers these days are multi-core. .. > >> One of things easy to overlook is that SQLite is not a PC-exclusive > software. About 10 million copies of SQLite run on iPhone. Who knows > how many run on other handhelds, embedded platforms, Vxworks, the > like. SQLite used to fit on a floppy and probably still does. > > Good point! > > I lost my perspective on SQLite's intended audience. > > Regards, > Malcolm > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > -- W Allan Edwards 214-289-2959 _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list [email protected] http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
